Licensing Bill [HL]

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to make provision about the regulation of the sale and supply of alcohol, the provision of entertainment and the provision of late night refreshment, about offences relating to alcohol and for connected purposes. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
	Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Baroness Blackstone.)
	On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Arms Control and Disarmament (Inspections) Bill [HL]

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to make further provision relating to the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe signed in Paris on 19th November 1990. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
	Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean.)
	On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Waste and Emissions Trading Bill [HL]

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Whitty, I beg to introduce a Bill to make provision about waste and about penalties for non-compliance with schemes for the trading of emissions quotas. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
	Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton.)
	On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

High Hedges Bill [HL]

Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes, I beg to introduce a Bill to make provision for dealing with complaints about high hedges; and for connected purposes. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
	Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Baroness Trumpington.)
	On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Committee of Selection

Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
	Moved, That in accordance with Standing Order 64 a Committee of Selection be appointed to select and propose to the House the names of the Lords to form each Select Committee of the House (except the Committee of Selection itself and any committee otherwise provided for by statute or by order of the House) or any other body not being a Select Committee referred to it by the Chairman of Committees, and the panel of Deputy Chairmen of Committees; and that the following Lords together with the Chairman of Committees be named of the Committee:
	L. Cope of Berkeley, L. Craig of Radley, L. Dubs, L. Grocott, L. Roper, V. Slim, L. Strathclyde, L. Trefgarne, B. Williams of Crosby, L. Williams of Mostyn (L. Privy Seal).—(The Chairman of Committees.)

Lord Barnett: My Lords, I am sorry to intervene, especially as the noble Lord is making his first appearance as the new Chairman of Committees. I congratulate the noble Lord on assuming that office but I must ask him to think again about the Motion. We are appointing a Committee of Selection that will decide on the membership of all Select Committees. The role of Select Committees is to hold government to account for much of the time. Should that selection be done wholly by the Front Benches? There are only three non-Front-Benchers on the list all of whom, I am sure, will do an excellent job. The committee will be totally dominated by the Front Benches. The new Chairman of Committees will be conscious of the problem. When my noble friend Lord Sheldon was chairman of the Liaison Committee in another place, he fought very hard to ensure that the Government did not dominate the selection of members of committees.
	I hope that noble Lords will consider this matter and that the Chairman of Committees will do so further. We are today starting for the first time on a Thursday at 11 o'clock, and it cannot be right or the best way to proceed if we also continue with the same procedure. Is the Chairman of Committees willing to think again?

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I associate myself very much with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Barnett. He is a very wise man and although I cannot always follow him in the restraint that he shows, on this occasion I applaud it and am doing my best to copy it.

Lord Sheldon: My Lords, I add to the comments of my noble friend Lord Barnett. I was chairman of the Liaison Committee in another place. We produced a unanimous report that these matters should be decided by the whole House of Commons. The present Leader of the House agreed with that, and there was a vote in the House of Commons. Under a surprisingly whipped vote—done from behind the scenes—the proposal was lost although the Leader of the House wished it to be implemented. I hope that we shall not proceed along similar lines here. Members of this House need to have control of these matters.

Lord Roper: My Lords, before any vote, it is important to read what the Committee of Selection does. It does not make decisions; it makes recommendations and proposes to this House. The composition of Select Committees in this House is in the hands of noble Lords.

Lord Peston: My Lords, I find the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Roper, very puzzling. I normally agree with what he says. Would any of us ever name a Member of your Lordships' House as someone whom we should rather not have on a committee and—even more preposterously—name someone else whom we should prefer? The fact is that the usual channels dominate this matter. My noble friend is simply asking for some further thought in view of our total commitment to modernisation and similar matters. Everyone on my own committee, of course, is quite perfect. It would never occur to me to criticise any of them. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Roper, is not suggesting that we should get into the business of discussing named persons. I should find that deeply disturbing.

Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, first, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, for his kind words, although perhaps I do not thank him so much for his intervention on my first outing. I take his point. I say only that there are three Back-Bench Peers on the committee: the chairman of the Conservative Peers, the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne; the noble Lord, Lord Dubs; and the noble Viscount, Lord Slim. Therefore, it is not entirely a "usual channels" affair. However, it is for the parties to decide how they proceed in this matter, and this is the way proposed today. At this stage, I cannot say much more than that. I commend the Motion to the House.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House of Lords Reform: Joint Committee

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion on the Order Paper standing in the name of my noble and learned friend the Leader of the House.
	Moved, That it is expedient that a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons be appointed—
	(1) to consider issues relating to House of Lords reform, including the composition and powers of the second Chamber and its role and authority within the context of Parliament as a whole, having regard in particular to the impact which any proposed changes would have on the existing pre-eminence of the House of Commons, such consideration to include the implications of a House composed of more than one "category" of Member and the experience and expertise which the House of Lords in its present form brings to its function as the revising Chamber; and
	(2) having regard to paragraph (1) above, to report on options for the composition and powers of the House of Lords and to define and present to both Houses options for composition, including a fully nominated and fully elected House, and intermediate options; and to consider and report on— (a) any changes to the relationship between the two Houses which may be necessary to ensure the proper functioning of Parliament as a whole in the context of a reformed second Chamber and, in particular, any new procedures for resolving conflict between the two Houses; and (b) the most appropriate and effective legal and constitutional means to give effect to any new parliamentary settlement; and, in all the foregoing considerations, to have regard to—
	(i) the report of the Royal Commission on House of Lords Reform (Cm 4534);
	(ii) the White Paper, The House of Lords—Completing the Reform (Cm 5291), and the responses received thereto;
	(iii) debates and votes in both Houses of Parliament on House of Lords reform; and
	(iv) the House of Commons Public Administration Select Committee report, The Second Chamber: Continuing the Reform, including its consultation of the House of Commons, and any other relevant Select Committee reports.—(Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean.)

Lord Wigoder: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness for her undertaking that the items set out in paragraphs (i) to (iv), to which the committee shall have regard, are not intended to be an exclusive list and that the committee can have regard to any other matters that it considers appropriate.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: Yes, my Lords. I believe that it is a continuation of what we did in the previous Session but it is not an exclusive list.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Business

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, at 3 p.m. my noble friend Lord Rooker will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement which is being made in another place on the fire dispute.
	I take this opportunity to remind Members that today the House will adjourn during pleasure between 1.30 and 3 p.m. and that we should aim to conclude our business by 7.30 p.m. In order to rise by 7.30 p.m., Back-Bench speeches should last for no more than nine minutes, as indicated at the foot of the speakers' list.

Lord Marlesford: My Lords, perhaps I may raise a question. I am, of course, fully aware that we moved to a different timetable for business. However, I had not personally taken it on board—perhaps it was my foolishness—that, in effect, that will mean that all debates on days where the aim is to end at 7.30 p.m. will be time-limited. Therefore, in practice, if Statements are made and if many noble Lords wish to speak, very short periods will be available for speeches. I know that that has been the practice in other forms of debate in your Lordships' House, but this seems to me to be a big extension of that principle. If I am right, it is one at which I express some unhappiness.

Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I listened carefully to the Captain of the Yeoman of the Guard and he did not say that it is a time-limited debate. Indeed, it is not a time-limited debate, as my noble friend makes clear. That was not part of the agreement and it was not part of the arrangements which your Lordships' House carried in the summer. It was agreed that we should use our best endeavours to finish by the various times stated.
	However, in the discussions that we had—off the top of my head I cannot remember whether it was stated specifically in the House; it was rather a long debate—it was also understood that when, for example, we had a Statement, the time targets would be regarded as flexible. Obviously a Statement takes a huge chunk out of the time.
	Clearly today, when we have a Statement, we are less likely to conclude by 7.30 p.m. than would be the case if there were not a Statement. In any case, the suggestion of the number of minutes for which noble Lords should speak is just that—a suggestion. No doubt some noble Lords will speak more briefly than the time suggested, but it is possible that some will overrun that time, having valuable things to share with your Lordships' House. All that is entirely in order, within the agreement and within the Motion passed by your Lordships in the summer. It was very deliberately not a Motion to time-limit debates.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I confirm what the noble Lord, Lord Cope, has just said. Last summer a decision of the whole House was made that we should take action to seek to conclude our business by 7.30 p.m. on some days and by 10 p.m. on others. I cannot think that it was not clear to anyone that seeking to achieve that might lead to some self-discipline among Members. The usual channels are trying to implement the decision that the House took in July this year. As the noble Lord, Lord Cope, rightly says, this is not a time-limited debate. No government Whips will stand up at the conclusion of nine minutes to say that the speaker must sit down. But, of course, the House has the objective of rising and that will call for self-discipline by all Members of the House.
	The question of whether there is a Statement and the effect that that has on the length of speeches has also been anticipated. At the foot of the speakers' list is a proposed time limit for when there is a Statement and one for when there is not. The nine minutes that I suggested today takes into account the fact that there will be a Statement.

Address in Reply to Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech

Debate resumed on the Motion moved yesterday by the Baroness Turner of Camden—namely, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty as follows:
	"Most Gracious Sovereign—We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, beg leave to thank Your Majesty for the most gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament."

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am extremely grateful for the opportunity to open this debate on foreign affairs, international development and defence. The world has changed profoundly in the year-and-a-half since we last discussed these issues in a debate on the gracious Speech. Since then, some of our worst fears, which to many people were far-fetched or unimaginable, have become a reality in New York, Washington, Pennsylvania, Bali and Moscow. Terrorism has threatened the international community more starkly than ever.
	But, over the same period, we have also seen the international community performing at its best in Afghanistan, Sierra Leone, Bosnia, Kosovo and East Timor. All those countries still have huge difficulties to overcome but all have become not so much theatres of conflict as theatres of co-operation, rebuilding and shared international effort.
	We in this country can be proud of Britain's contribution to that effort. Our role in international peacekeeping forces as well as our support for reconstruction has been crucial. These are among the best examples of Britain acting as a force for good in the world and a prime example of why we need strong Armed Forces equipped for today's challenges; a dedicated and astute Diplomatic Service; vigilant and well-informed intelligence services; and an international development programme focused on eradicating poverty, hunger and disease. I pay tribute to all the men and women who serve the United Kingdom throughout the world in those capacities. Their work is often difficult and dangerous. It does not always grab the headlines. All too often it surfaces only in times of military conflict, terrorist outrage or humanitarian disaster. But it goes on painstakingly and professionally day in, day out and it matters deeply.
	Let me begin with what will be foremost in many minds today: Iraq. Your Lordships will want to know that there will be an opportunity to debate that subject fully in this House in coming weeks. The Government's policy is clear: full compliance with the United Nations Security Council resolutions and an end to Iraq's development of weapons of mass destruction, verified by United Nations weapons inspectors. Those are our crucial objectives. Iraqi acceptance yesterday, albeit grudgingly, of the unanimously expressed will of the United Nations in the shape of UNSCR 1441 is a first welcome step. But we must be vigilant. The Iraqi regime's intentions are notoriously changeable. To achieve our objectives we must continue to pursue a strategy of diplomacy backed by force. Last week's UN Security Council resolution gives us what we need: a path forward in how the international community should deal with that threat and, crucially, a path forward for Iraq too, if the regime will take it, to normalise relations with the rest of the world.
	The United Nations is also playing a key role in combating international terrorism. The UN Counter-Terrorism Committee, under the chairmanship of our Ambassador Sir Jeremy Greenstock, is reviewing the efforts of member states to suppress terrorism, and co-ordinating support for those efforts. We are making real progress. In Afghanistan, the Taliban has been removed and democratic government established. Reconstruction is underway. Al'Qaeda's operations have been severely disrupted. But the threat remains and nobody is immune: the advanced economies, the military powers, commercial life, or, indeed, the poorer parts of the world. We all suffer from terrorism or the threat of terrorism. This Government will continue to play a leading role in combating it.
	In recent weeks we have been asked about the direct linkage between terrorism and our concerns about weapons of mass destruction. The question has been raised in this House. The fact is that both are threats. They are distinct and separate but both are current and potentially deadly. We know that Iraq is not the only country to have been building up undeclared weapons of mass destruction. North Korea also poses a serious threat. There are concerns about, among others, India, Pakistan and Israel. In all those cases the countries concerned are in discussion about how to deal with their weapons.
	Where states possess nuclear weapons, we must work to minimise the risk of them being used. In South Asia, Britain has been active in trying to reduce longstanding tensions between India and Pakistan. We hope the recent elections in Kashmir can serve as the basis for further confidence building.
	For many commentators, politicians and many of your Lordships, I know that the underlying problem, the huge unresolved conflict, is in the Middle East. We must all work to stop the violence and build a more secure future for Israel and the Palestinian people. The Government understand the enormity of the obstacles which face us. Those obstacles can be overcome only through leadership by those directly involved but the international community can and must help. I applaud the role Javier Solana is playing as the EU's representative in the quartet on the Middle East working alongside the United States, the United Nations and Russia. The quartet is moving forward on a road map that could achieve a final settlement within three years, breaking the cycle of violence, despair, hatred and deprivation which has gone on for too long and which is a scar on the face of the international community.
	Russia's role in the quartet on the Middle East is just one example of its growing partnership with the West. That is an important and welcome trend. There are many issues of common concern. As the terrible events in Moscow two weeks ago illustrated, Russia knows as much as any country about the threat from terrorism. We have a shared interest in combating international crime and curbing the flow of heroin from Afghanistan. Building on those shared interests, we are now also working to develop a new relationship between NATO and Russia. We look forward to continuing the dialogue of growing trust and co-operation.
	Moreover, NATO itself is changing fast. The Prague Summit later this month will be an opportunity to reshape NATO to provide defence against the new threats of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. That means giving it new missions, new capabilities, new command structures and a substantial number of new members. NATO is also developing new relationships with its partners to the east and south, especially Russia following the establishment of the NATO-Russia Council. All that represents a transformation which will guarantee the role of the alliance as the bedrock of our security for the next generation.
	The transatlantic alliance remains the basis of our collective and territorial defence. Our relationship with the United States is strong and effective. We are bound not only by our close ties of commerce, defence and language but by the underlying values we share as free people within vibrant civil societies where democracy and the rule of law are paramount. We are, as the American Ambassador William Farish remarked at the commemoration of the dreadful events of September 11th, the United States' staunchest ally and truest friend. But, as in all relationships, both sides have to work hard and both countries, the United Kingdom and the United States, do indeed work hard to sustain and grow our vital friendship.
	Diplomacy must always be backed by defence. Our defence capability is crucial in making us an effective international partner. Our Strategic Defence Review has provided the basis for restructuring and re-equipping our Armed Forces. The value of that has been proved time and again in terms of their professional fighting capability and superb record in peacekeeping. Our servicemen and women are the envy of the world. We shall ensure that they have the support they need to perform effectively. We must continue to take prudent steps to ensure that they are ready, fully trained and fully equipped to undertake any task their country may ask of them.
	The new chapter of the Strategic Defence Review published this year provided a renewed assessment of the fast-changing security environment. We are increasing our defence spending and have launched an unprecedented programme of enhancing defence capabilities: new aircraft carriers, the new Type 45s; new transport provision in C17s and the A400M; the Typhoon; the Joint Strike Fighter; and Watchkeeper, which will form a key part of progress towards network enabled capabilities. Also, in ASRAAM the RAF now has a missile available for full operational deployment that is already the best of its kind in the world; and, yes, we will have a new communications systems too.
	We must also continue to work with our EU partners on a European security and defence policy to enable Europe's contribution to crisis management operations both within NATO and when NATO is not engaged. That will be discussed at the Copenhagen Summit. The summit will also see historic decisions on enlargement of the EU to include new members. The Government hope to see a first wave of accession by 2004 by 10 EU applicants and will, as the gracious Speech indicated, bring forward the necessary legislation during this Parliament.
	The Government are also working to promote reform of the EU's internal structures. The Treaty of Nice was the first step. Copenhagen will be another. We have laid out our priorities: defining the competencies of the EU more clearly; simplifying the treaties to make them easier to understand; addressing the role of national parliaments in the EU; and improving the EU's democratic legitimacy. We hope that the Convention on the Future of Europe will see progress on this agenda, and we commend the work of parliamentarians in both Houses who are taking this forward.
	Reform is needed to help to prepare the way for EU enlargement. But that is not the only reason why reform is needed. Many of the changes we are seeking are long overdue; for example, strengthening co-operation against organised crime and illegal immigration and reforming the common agricultural policy. The mid-term review is still on track and Europe must recognise that a system of subsidies where every cow is subsidised to the tune of two dollars a day, while 1.2 billion people around the world subsist on one dollar a day is not right, not sustainable and not acceptable. We must also enhance the competitiveness of the EU economies. The Government will complete by June 2003 their assessment of whether Britain should join the euro, based on the five economic tests. In the meantime, our policy remains clear: in principle we are in favour of joining; in practice the economic conditions must be right.
	We want to strengthen the EU's role as a force for good in the world in preventing conflict, promoting democracy and human rights, and supporting sustainable development. The Convention on the Future of Europe is looking at reforms to the EU's foreign policy mechanisms. Development also deserves a distinctive place in the convention's considerations. We want to see the EU's current development policy reform efforts intensified. That includes reducing trade barriers, particularly to agricultural goods, to make it easier for developing countries to begin to trade effectively. The Government will work with EU partners for a successful conclusion to the multilateral trade negotiations launched in Doha last year.
	According to the IMF, if we were able to halve the trade tariffs around the world, we could increase the trade to developing countries by some 150 billion dollars a year. That is three times what the whole world gives in aid budgets to those countries.
	As the Minister for Trade, noble Lords would expect me to be committed on this point: I am convinced that a successful trade round would serve the interests of developing and developed countries alike, including of course this country. Our prosperity is hugely dependent on international trade and investment. Our long-standing crucial trading relationships with the US and with Europe are well understood. But world-wide we must sustain our efforts, which produce 30 per cent of our GDP. The City of London is one of the world's leading financial markets. One in three of our diplomats is involved in promoting British business and securing high-quality foreign investment. The creation of British Trade International, which reports directly to the DTI and the Foreign Office, has enhanced their work greatly.
	British Trade International is a great example of the Government's emphasis on joining up the work of Whitehall departments. That is important in all areas of policy. But it is particularly relevant to much of today's foreign policy agenda. For example, trade relationships with the countries of Latin America, with Brazil and Mexico, on the one hand and countries in Asia—in particular with China emerging as a huge economy—are crucial in taking forward other areas of shared concern. Globalisation is making Britain's security and prosperity increasingly dependent on events abroad. Departments traditionally focused on domestic policy are increasingly aware of the international angle; and departments traditionally focused on international developments are increasingly aware of the domestic agenda. A good example was the preparations for the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg. Through active, joined-up diplomacy we played a key role in securing a wide array of new commitments to promote sustainable development worldwide.
	It is appropriate that that summit was held in Africa. Nowhere is the challenge of sustainable development more compelling. We can, and must, make progress. This requires partnership; a commitment by African leaders to pursue policies to tackle poverty, and a commitment by the international community to support those policies. The New Partnership for Africa's Development provides the framework we need. Britain is providing strong support. Our assistance to Africa is increasing rapidly and will soon exceed £1 billion per year. The Prime Minister has given strong leadership in this endeavour and of course my noble friend Lady Amos has been closely involved as his special representative in Africa and has worked tirelessly on this issue.
	The priority we are giving to Africa is part of a wider refocusing of Britain's international development programme towards a single goal; that is, reducing poverty. That was confirmed by the International Development Act, which received Royal Assent during the last Parliament. We will press ahead with this agenda and work to strengthen the development efforts of the international community as a whole, particularly the EU, the United Nations and the World Bank. The key challenge is to focus the entire international effort on achieving the millennium development goals.
	In the meantime, we are faced with the appalling food crisis in southern Africa and increasing concern at the situation in Ethiopia. The number of people at risk in southern Africa is truly terrifying. We have committed more than £81 million since September in humanitarian assistance and agricultural recovery. Our support will continue. We must also encourage others in the wider international community to engage further. In Ethiopia, at the same time as humanitarian assistance, we are looking at tackling the underlying causes of food insecurity.
	The Commonwealth is a key partner in these efforts. The Government's commitment to the Commonwealth remains as strong as ever. Members are bound by a shared commitment to sustainable development, based on the principles of good governance and respect for human rights. It is tragic that these principles originally agreed in Harare are now so threatened in Zimbabwe. We must continue to work with our Commonwealth partners and the wider international community to continue to tackle the problems which have had such an appalling effect on the long-suffering people of that country.
	The Government also remain firmly committed to British Overseas Territories, as set out in the 1999 White Paper. We want to build a secure, stable and prosperous future for all our territories, and of course we have particularly in mind at the moment Gibraltar. As I have said many times in your Lordships' House, this can be achieved only through constructive dialogue, a dialogue which we hope to continue with all interested parties.
	We know that these are not issues for government alone. We know we need to work closely with business, non-governmental organisations, religious communities and the whole range of others involved in international development and foreign and defence policy. The Government have taken significant steps to enhance such co-operation. We recognise the need to reach out to all those who can contribute to this debate—to the Arab and Muslim communities—in finding a way forward on what my right honourable friend the Prime Minister described as the only viable solution that the whole world supports in the Middle East—an Israeli state recognised by all and a viable Palestinian state.
	We need to reach out, too, to those in failing or failed nations, to help them to rebuild their fragile societies and to move away from military conflict, corruption and poverty.
	We recognise the need for dialogue between the great religions of the world. I commend, as did my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, the work of the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Carey of Clifton, in pioneering the Alexandria process in this respect, which embraces the religious leaders with very different views and backgrounds, but all with a shared passion for peace.
	We shall talk to those who will engage in this endeavour to encourage all countries to espouse the freedoms that we hold dear and to apply the benefits which flow from those freedoms in terms of peace and prosperity fairly around the world.

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I am sure that all noble Lords are extremely grateful to the noble Baroness for her wide-ranging survey of international affairs. In the time available I could not possibly—nor shall I—seek to cover all the interesting points and aspects of this very dangerous world upon which she touched.
	However, it is appropriate that we should open the debate on the gracious Speech by addressing international affairs, because foreign and domestic issues are becoming more and more inter-linked. The opinion pollsters tell us that no one is really interested in foreign affairs. But, of course, they ask the wrong questions. The reality is that what happens in relation to the issues that we are discussing today influences intimately the business mood, life on the high street, our daily lives, our social affairs, our taxes, spending prices and the future of our politics. So we are starting at the right point with an overarching view that embraces the whole foreign and domestic scene.
	Perhaps the greatest lesson that we have learnt in the past year—between the previous gracious Speech and this one—is that the frontiers of our freedom, safety and security have radically shifted. We now live in an infinitely more complex foreign affairs, defence and security environment. We used to think that our front lines were mainly on the Elbe and in central Europe and our faith was in the NATO shield. True, the foundations of our security remain collective, but not only is NATO changing radically, as the noble Baroness said and as will be discussed in the forthcoming Prague gathering on NATO reform, but the frontiers to be defended have moved both further away and, at the same time, much nearer home.
	We now confront immediate danger to our citizens and our lives both in the mountains of Afghanistan and on the high street. Instability in Africa, central Asia and even the Pacific region directly threaten our survival, while at the same time homeland defence against terrorist acts in our cities and towns has once again loomed massive in importance—as military planners have belatedly recognised with their renewed interest in the Territorials and reservists, who have been cut repeatedly over the years under successive governments. We are now beginning once again to understand and respect their vital role.
	I shall concentrate on three themes from the gracious Speech, all mentioned by the noble Baroness. The first is the Middle East situation and Iraq—the horrors of the Israel-Palestine conflict and the surrounding penumbra of terrorist, hatred and anti-Americanism with which it is infused. The second is the contribution that we in this country are making in those fields—in particular, the contribution of our Armed Forces and their equipment—in readiness and preparation for what is clearly to come. Thirdly, I shall consider a matter to which the noble Baroness devoted some time, which is the value added, as it were, in the handling of those issues crucial to our national security by current European Union developments and plans, the work of the convention and the stream of new proposals to reorganise and reshape the European Union in the face of its prospective enlargement to 25 nations.
	Given time, I shall also say a word about the increasing feebleness and dismal incompetence of the Government during the Gibraltar saga, which now has an almost farcical quality. In the words of the excellent House of Commons Foreign Affairs Select Committee, we have achieved the worst of all worlds, with both Gibraltar and Spain deeply alienated, everyone feeling cross and all our aims set far back. I shall return to that later, if I have time.
	Obviously, I should also like to say a word about Zimbabwe, where our feeble policy is allowing the entire New Partnership for Africa's Development, which was mentioned in the gracious Speech, to be undermined. The result of that and the Zimbabwean crisis is making the already appalling drought much worse and increasing rather than reducing suffering. My noble friend Lord Astor will speak in much greater depth on both those subjects, as well as on that other great strand of world policy, underdevelopment and its main cause, which is bad governance, when he winds up the debate.
	My first theme is Iraq and the Middle East. As I said the other day, we strongly welcome the United Nations resolution and the reply through the post from Baghdad—although, Saddam being a congenital liar like Matilda, who,
	"told such Dreadful Lies
	It made one Gasp and Stretch one's Eyes",
	cannot resist telling a whopper right at the outset. There will be many more half truths, dissembling and some difficult calls to make for those who want the matter to be sensibly progressed during the coming weeks.
	I strongly support a point made by the noble Baroness and the Foreign Secretary, which is that the truly credible threat of force behind the resolution has been the key to getting movement so far. Anyone who thinks that Saddam would have moved an inch if it had not been for the strong credibility—the visible signs—that we were prepared to use military force deludes himself. I know that many Members of your Lordships' House—perhaps in all parties—and people outside Parliament have questioned the threat of force. However sincere they are, they have not understood the point that every doubt uttered about using military force immediately encourages Iraq to flout the UN again, making violence, instability and warfare much more likely, not less.
	Nor have some of the doubters understood that international terrorism and weapons of mass destruction are all part of the same culture of mindless hatred and fanatical murder. The Prime Minister did not emphasise that point when he first spoke about the dossier on and the need to do something about Iraq, but now he appears to have got the point. I am glad that the Government are now emphasising, as they did not originally, that weapons of mass destruction and the terrorist mentality are two new terrifying developments that, when they come together, threaten us all.
	I have full respect for those who argue that the Israel-Palestine tragedy must also be addressed and that we must not be distracted from it, but with Saddam curbed or even removed and a new sense of moderation and co-operation running from Turkey, where there is a new government, through a more pluralist Iraq to a more enlightened Syria, which seems to be changing its views, the chances of progress with Palestine and Israel will be immeasurably increased. Those things go together.
	Secondly, how do we in Britain prepare to be part of that credible threat, to help in the use of military force? We all know that our Armed Forces have unmatched personnel who risk their lives for us. We must never forget that for a moment, but we must ask whether we are fulfilling our side of the bargain and sending them into battle with the best possible equipment. In the words of the noble Baroness, are we equipping them to meet today's challenges?
	At present, some of our troops are having to give up their leave to perform firefighting duties using machines that when I see them on the streets look suspiciously like something out of Thomas the Tank Engine. I hope that they will be able to manage. However, in the longer term and more seriously, I recognise that valuable lessons were learnt during Exercise Saif Sareea in Oman and that the smart acquisition procurement cycle has had its successes in the military. However, when I asked the National Audit Office, the House of Lords Library and other experts for a short list of some problem projects, the papers with which I was supplied were so voluminous that I could not even pick up my briefcase. The list is vast. I shall name only a few from an enormous list of problems with the provision of equipment.
	As a result of Exercise Saif Sareea, we know that some of our trucks boil over, Challenger tanks get full of sand—although we hear that that is being corrected—boots melt, and rifles jam—there are now doubts even about the modified SA80, the A2. Signal equipment is still ancient. Bowman is coming but Clansman is inadequate for placing an expeditionary force in the Gulf.
	As for bigger equipment, Apaches are mothballed because of lack of pilots and damage themselves with debris when they shoot their missiles. Lynxes are grounded, so we have Apaches with no pilots and pilots for Lynxes but no aircraft. Merlins have operational difficulties. Half of our frigates and destroyers are unavailable. Nimrod's wings do not fit. The Sea Harrier is to be scrapped. The upgraded Tornado has trouble with its missiles. The Eurofighter is over-running its cost by £1.9 billion—that is a minimum estimate; some say that the figure is much higher—costing £19 billion in total. Then we have the Joint Strike Fighter—I fully appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Bach, Minister of State for Defence, is at present in the United States dealing with that issue.
	I do not know whether we need all those vast, manned fighters for our future equipment, but they certainly drain money away. Now, according to the Daily Telegraph of 2nd November—I would like to know whether there is any authenticity in the report—the Chancellor is telling military chiefs that we do not have the money to mount a full expedition with full equipment to the Gulf anyway. That will not be surprising, if half of the things that I read out are correct. We are entitled to, at least, some assurances that some of the matters are being addressed in a way that will ensure that, as the noble Baroness said, our troops are fully equipped for today's challenges.
	I would also like to hear in the winding-up speech how many reservists will be needed to get the expeditionary force into the Gulf for the attack on Iraq, if we are to make a serious contribution alongside the Americans and others. We hope that that attack will not come, but it may be needed.
	The Secretary of State for Defence has also said that we must consider seriously the issues that arise for us from developments in ABM technology and the need for American bases here to be upgraded. Can we be assured that that is all going ahead and not told that no formal decision has been requested from the Americans? In his latest pronouncements, the Secretary of State has encouraged us to consider such matters. How is all that going?
	I turn now to the enlargement of the European Union. We will deal with the accession treaty Bill in the coming year. I have two initial comments. First, it seems to me, having spent some time at the EU institutions and in Brussels in the past few weeks, that there is a conviction that a larger European Union means more centralisation and more power to the central European institutions. It is a deep conviction. I believe that the opposite is the case and that that view is fundamentally wrong. The obsessive hunt for a single foreign policy is a distraction, and the demand for integration of the third pillar—which one hears all the time in Brussels—into a single structure is dangerous.
	The other day, the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, urged Britain to speak for Europe. That is crying for the moon. In the present situation, Britain speaks for Europe neither on Iraq nor on many other issues. EU spokesmen certainly do not speak for us. Mr Schroder has called for the "German way" in dealing with Iraq; that is not our way. France is ploughing a completely different furrow. We need a realistic understanding of our differences, if we are to make a serious contribution in that area. It is good that the mantra of ever-closer union has, at last, been discarded, but the convention keeps calling, as the noble Baroness mentioned, for a single pillar, combining defence and foreign policy in a "communitised" system. That would be unacceptable, and I hope that the Government hold that view too. We need an assurance on that, before we are told one morning that the whole matter has been conceded.
	The concern to create a European superpower is an elitist's dream. It is utterly remote from the people of Europe and will not bring a single benefit to Europe's citizens. There is, in some quarters, total failure to understand that the real need is to bring power back to national parliaments and ensure that democracy and accountability are not pushed onto the back seats, as they sometimes appear to be in the convention's discussions. The European Charter of Fundamental Rights has, apparently, now been accepted, although it was once described as being no more important than the Beano. If we incorporate that into the proposed new constitution and treaty, it will not add in any way to human liberties. In some circumstances, the piling on of additional rights is so unbalanced that it will reduce those liberties.
	I hope for an absolute assurance from the Government that, when the new constitution being brewed up—in effect, a huge new European treaty—comes along in a year or so from now, there will be a referendum here. The people of Britain must be allowed to make their views known by that means. We are also utterly opposed to any new powers to arrest and extradite British citizens for activities that are not crimes in this country.
	After terrorism, the second greatest danger is the deepening divide between the European Union and America. The noble Baroness mentioned the ESDP. Some say that the Prime Minister has lost interest in that scheme, but the damage has been done. Ministers still assert that ESDP does not weaken NATO, while the Americans warn us that it weakens American enthusiasm for working and engaging with Europe. They ask why we have created an autonomous capability outside NATO.
	It has brought a heap of problems, which I have been dealing with in Brussels in the past few days. There is the issue of Turkey, which has been stirred up to fever pitch by Giscard d'Estaing's unwise remarks, just when there is a new, more balanced government in Ankara who might help us to solve the Cyprus situation with their interesting idea of having Swiss-type cantons. That has all been embittered by the ESDP issue. There is the American call for a NATO response force. I do not see how that is supposed to fit in with the European rapid reaction force, unless our troops are to be triple-hatted. The common agricultural policy is still with us and is likely to be so for many years. It will not be changed as some of us—including, I think, the Government—hoped. Meanwhile, the centre Left in Europe has been singing the wrong tune about George Bush. Amid the usual anti-American chorus, he is proving to be a powerful statesman and a winning politician. It sometimes seems that, while the Asians and others worry that American foreign policy will fail to meet its peace-keeping aims, too many Europeans fear that it will succeed.
	I have no time to comment on the euro, about which the noble Baroness spoke. We do not think much of the five tests. The real issue is stability against the dollar, a currency that is more important—1.6 times more important—for our exports than the euro. All that must be debated in the Chamber. Some misleading figures have been given from the Government Benches.
	There is a paradox at the centre of global affairs. The US is the most powerful state, but it is also the most vulnerable. Our medium size and agility are valuable adjuncts that would be seriously damaged, if we were to become entangled in a dinosaur of a European superpower. World security requires the partnership of US might and UK agility. The stupidest reaction of all in the present dangerous conditions would be for the European leadership to try to rival or emulate the US and create another superpower. The applicant states understand that better, in many ways, than do the leading policy-makers in some other continental capitals. Our best contributions to world peace are the confidence and the qualities that we have as the British people.
	Of course, the US cannot go it alone; we have known that all along and have said so. There is a need for our qualities in dealing not only with Iraq but with Zimbabwe, which I mentioned. We should take the lead in the Commonwealth and not just wring our hands. We should also take the lead over Gibraltar, where our nerve and our diplomatic skills seem to have failed us. I hope that, whatever the noble Baroness said, the present plan will be dropped.
	It is now time to explain simply to our Spanish friends and neighbours that the best way of handling the Gibraltarians is to be nicer to them and not to bully them—or, indeed, us. We should be firm, friendly but unwavering in safeguarding the freedom, prosperity and security of our people. That is the way to a better relationship all round. On Gibraltar, we should drop the talks and start again. I hope that our foreign policy makers and Ministers have, at least, learnt that lesson in the past year and will apply it with more success in the year to come.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, we must start the debate with the most immediate issue: the Middle East and the potential war with Iraq. I congratulate the Government on their efforts to ensure that there was a successful UN resolution that could be adopted by unanimity. It was worth the effort, the countless telephone calls and the weeks of delay. To witness Syria voting for that resolution and then the Arab League meeting to bring pressure on Iraq shows what can be done through effective multilateral co-operation. We all recognise that the British Government have played a very constructive role in this, and for that it has our full support.
	The first result of that massive effort has been that Iraq has been forced by its neighbours and partners, as much as by the rest of the world community, to accept inspection on the terms laid down in a very tough resolution. I was rather shaken yesterday to be telephoned by an American reporter, who will be accompanying President Bush to Prague, and asked whether the Europeans were going to stick with this rather vague UN resolution. In response to that I ask: 'have you read it?' This is a very detailed and tough resolution. It gives us the way forward and if there are those in Washington who think that this is not a serious operation then we have to be tough with our American allies and say this is the path down which we go.
	None of us, of course, has any illusions that this will be a tough and continuing process with many twists and turns in the coming months. The immediate prospect of war has been averted, but we all recognise that the threat of force remains necessary to ensure compliance. So Liberal Democrats support necessary military preparations provided that these remain within the framework of the United Nations Security Council resolution and provided that any move towards the use of force will be taken within the context of multilateral co-operation, not of a unilateral American assessment followed by Britain alone. We have set out to manage the problem of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq through multilateral institutions, so far successfully. We should continue down that path, holding the international community together as well as we can.
	I have also been surprised and unnerved by the extent to which there are those in Washington who wish to refer to Saddam Hussein as a madman totally outside the possibilities of any compromise. All the evidence, as I am glad to see that the US administration's psychological adviser on Saddam Hussein himself admits, is that Saddam Hussein is a rational actor who recognises that survival is an important part of his future plans.
	Therefore, we welcome the effort that the Government are making to insist that inspections shall be the road down which we go, but that inspections have to be accepted on the terms of the UN resolution. We also welcome the Minister's reaffirmation that problems of weapons of mass destruction and of Iraq are not the same as those of international terrorism, even if there are many indirect links between them, and that effective inspection in Iraq, or even a regime change, will not resolve the problems of international terrorism.
	We, in the United Kingdom, and our allies and partners, also have to address the wider context of relations between the western democracies and the Middle East and the Muslim world as a whole. Therefore, we welcomed the Prime Minister's restatement in his Lord Mayor's banquet speech of Britain's approach to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, reminding us of President Bush's speech of last June with its clear commitment to a two-state solution and to a viable Palestinian state, which must mean a withdrawal from many of the recent Israeli settlements, not just another promise of a halt in their further expansion. We know, sadly, that there are those in Israel who wish to push the Palestinians out of the Occupied Territories and claim the whole of the land west of the Jordan for a Jewish state. We must spell out very clearly that any move towards permanent occupation, let alone towards expulsion of substantial proportions of the population, would be condemned by the whole international community.
	We all recognise that there is an unavoidable link between the bitter and longstanding Israeli/Palestinian dispute and relations with the rest of the Middle East. The West has to be seen, as the Prime Minister also rightly said, to be concerned with the implementation of all UN resolutions towards the region if we are to carry other Arab governments and their publics with us on Iraq.
	We also welcome from these Benches the efforts that the Government have been putting in—in particular the Foreign Secretary—on maintaining a dialogue with Iran. We do not see Iran as part of the axis of evil: we see it as a state internally divided, in which it is very much in the interests of the West to encourage those progressive elements who wish to move towards a more open relationship with their partners.
	We also want to see our Government and others pursue the agenda opened up by the UN Development Programme Arab Human Development Report; not, as again some in Washington have suggested, a recipe for imposing western democracy across the region immediately through forced regime change, but an intelligent admission from Arab experts of the underlying problems of authoritarian regimes attempting economic modernisation without social progress or political reform. We clearly need a broad co-operative strategy to take that agenda forward.
	Furthermore, we should do everything we can to promote a closer dialogue between the West and the Muslim world as a whole. Again, we welcome the Prime Minister's references to inter-faith dialogue and the role of the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Carey of Clifton, in the Alexandria Process. There is a great deal more to be done here, including with our own Muslim community within Britain.
	I just want to repeat what we on these Benches have said before, our enemy in this—the enemy of liberalism, of democracy, of civilisation— is fundamentalism, not Islam. Christian fundamentalism lurks dangerously on the conservative right of American politics. Jewish fundamentalism supports the expansion of Israeli settlements across the whole of Gaza and the West Bank and dismisses the rights and interests of the Palestinians. Muslim fundamentalism drives international terror attacks against the West.
	In all of that, and in much of the rest of Britain's foreign policy, we can achieve little on our own. British foreign policy is far more effective when it is conducted in co-operation with others than when we attempt to stand in splendid isolation, as it seems to me so often the Conservatives appear to prefer. There have been occasions in the previous Session when I have wondered whether the foreign policy of the Conservative Party was concerned with Zimbabwe, Gibraltar and very little else. I was glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Howell, ranging more widely today, although I have to say the underlying anti-European tone of his remarks did worry me considerably. I would be sorry to hear the Conservative Party going quite so far into almost a hope that the European Union will fail so that we can follow America as a passive partner, rather than what many in Washington, as the President will say in Prague, want from the Europeans; that is, an active partner which is capable of working together with the United States. And that requires the Europeans to work together.
	The Prime Minister has put in great efforts over the past few months in co-operating with the United States. I was struck to hear on a radio programme a Republican congressman refer to the argument between the Cheney/Rumsfeld axis and the Powell/Blair axis. If I were the Prime Minister I would be very happy with that definition. I think that there were some disadvantages in working quite so far behind the scenes. Our Government, and others, have to be concerned about the unnerving quality of the public debate within Washington—how frenzied it is, how many subjects are not being discussed there—and we need, as America's partners, to be taking part in their public debate as well as in their private influence.
	However, I worry that some of that has been at the cost of neglecting Britain's partners. If the United Kingdom is to act as an effective bridge between Europe and the United States we have to ensure that the footings remain firm on both sides. There is, after all, a heavy European agenda for the coming weeks and months. We have the NATO summit in Prague on 14th and 15th November. Thankfully, enlargement is already a done deal, but the American proposal for what is now called a NATO response force is an important challenge to Europeans. Here again, I disagree strongly with what the noble Lord, Lord Howell, said. It seems to be clear that the American proposal for the NATO response force fits in quite well with further progress towards an ESDP. It is a different rapid reaction force for a different purpose and it is important that Europeans respond positively to that.
	I do, however, agree with the noble Lord, Lord Howell, that there have been occasions in the past two years when it has seemed as though the Prime Minister has forgotten that the St Malo initiative was his and that Britain has appeared to go a little cool on closer European defence integration. We on these Benches are quite clear that if we want to use our own defence efforts more effectively, and to persuade our European partners to spend their limited defence budgets more effectively, closer defence integration is the way forward.
	That is not to talk about a European army. It is, however, to remark, for example, that in any potential conflict in Iraq British forces would rely on medical units from other European countries because we do not have enough, and we ought to be pleased that medical units from other European forces are available to work with the British. I was immensely puzzled by the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Howell, that what we really want is a looser common foreign policy and a looser European Union. What we get from Washington is an increasing demand that Europeans as a group should play a larger role in sharing the common burden. That is among many other reasons why we on these Benches support a more effective common foreign and security policy, including a more effective European defence policy.
	We then move on to the Copenhagen European Council on 12th and 13th December when the European Union has to deal with the final bargain on enlargement; a major development bringing 10 former socialist states into the European Union. What distresses Liberal Democrats most about that is the extent to which the broader vision has been lost. There is haggling about agriculture, about the budget and even about the British rebate. There is a suggestion that we ought to be concerned that these new members should not be net contributors in the first year after they join. However, there is no sense of generosity and no sense of the historic nature of extending security, democracy and prosperity from western Europe across to the East. I regret that none of the leaders in Europe, including our own, has yet begun to talk about enlargement in those terms. I hope that the British Prime Minister, when he goes to Copenhagen, will at least attempt to raise the debate to that level.
	On the convention, to which the Minister has referred, my noble friend Lord Maclennan will no doubt say a good deal more than me. However, I want briefly to say that this Government have said from the outset that they wish to strengthen the role of national parliaments in the European Union, but they have seemed remarkably reluctant to inform their own national Parliament of the proposals which they were making to the convention. I hope that at the end of the debate the Minister will assure us that we will have an early debate in this House on progress in the convention and that the Government will report their current attitude to the proposals under discussion in the convention. It is already halfway through and a number of reports have already been published and we ought to be allowed to have our say.
	We also welcome the reference in the Queen's Speech to reaching finally some sort of conclusion on the five tests for the euro. We on these Benches greatly hope that those conclusions will be favourable and we look forward to a referendum. I was pleased to see in the newspapers reports of the visit of a committee from the other place to Paris and of the constructive proposals that the French were making to welcome the British into the euro on favourable terms. That is a historic political and economic decision which we hope the British will soon be making.
	There are many other topics to which we will return in the course of the Session. I refer, for instance, to other aspects of weapons of mass destruction; the stricter control on and the reduction of arms sales; the question of the International Criminal Court; and of course the longer term challenge to Africa. I want to say from these Benches that we have all been immensely impressed by how hard the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, has worked on the problems of Africa and how effective her efforts have been in the extremely difficult circumstances of where we now are in southern Africa. We have no illusions that it is easy, given the colonial past, to deal with the current government in Zimbabwe. We recognise the mixture of political and economic difficulties.
	In the longer term, the challenge of Africa for Britain and our European neighbours is one of the most serious we must face. It is not purely a matter of altruism; it is clearly also a matter of self-interest. When states collapse, their educated and determined population arrives on the shores of Europe and many of them end up in London. When governments fail to be able to look after their populations, epidemics spread across borders. So we strongly support the Government's efforts to strengthen NePAD and the Johannesburg conference on world development.
	Finally, we also want to compliment the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on the extent to which its recruitment has opened up to an entirely new diverse section of our society. In particular, I am pleased to know that we are now able to staff our temporary post in Mecca each year entirely with Muslim members of the British Diplomatic Service. In view of the fact that graduate recruiters tell me that entering the Diplomatic Service is the single most popular choice for graduates now leaving university, that is all welcome news. Well done.
	We on these Benches support an active foreign policy for Britain which must also be an internationalist foreign policy. We see that policy as rooted in closer co-operation with our European neighbours and partners working to build a common foreign policy and a common European defence policy. Those European states together must operate to maintain trans-Atlantic partnership with the United States to promote an equitable international order which must be based on stronger international institutions and a full respect for international law.

Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, we are at a very serious moment in international affairs and I should like to look in particular at Iraq and Al'Qaeda.
	If one has followed, as I and others have, the detail of the manoeuvrings of the Saddam regime before, during and since the Gulf War, as well as understanding the full horror of the nature of that regime, then the current UN resolution is fully understandable in all its terms. Some have been taken aback by the stark and detailed demands in it and have called it a resolution for war. Well, it is only that if Saddam makes it so. Its terms are the way they are for two reasons.
	The first reason is that the detailed requirements are based on the bitter experiences of the UN weapons inspectors over the years before they finally had to give up in 1998. That is why there are such words as "immediate, unimpeded, unconditional and unrestricted access to any and all, including underground, areas, facilities, buildings, equipment, records and means of transport" and so forth, and why the resolution also provides for discretion to conduct interviews inside or outside Iraq without the presence of observers from the Iraqi Government. Behind all these words lie real experiences from the past, where we saw the UN inspectors thwarted from carrying out their UN mandate by every trick in the book being pulled by the Iraqis.
	We can only wish Dr Hans Blix well as chair of UNMOVIC. I know him, from my time as a British diplomat in Stockholm in the early 1970s, as a studiously correct member of his Foreign Office, and with his academic background and experience as a Swedish Foreign Minister he will be ideally placed to provide a calm and objective assessment of what he finds. It is, I have to say, a compliment to Sweden and its foreign service that it also provided my very good friend and outstanding diplomat, Rolf Ekeus, as a chair of UNSCOM in the earlier, very difficult days with Iraq.
	The second reason why the UN resolution has to be so explicit and uncompromising is that there is no point at all in trying to be diplomatically subtle with the Saddam regime. Many of us will remember how the unfortunate US ambassador to Baghdad was blamed, in my view unfairly, for not spelling out to Saddam what the reaction would be if he invaded Kuwait. She had conveyed the message in diplomatic terms, although one would have thought clearly enough.
	Saddam is a man who does not just fail to get the message when a spade is called a spade. He fails to get the message unless he is hit with a shovel. Those who find the resolution too warlike also think that there should have been a bridge left for him to walk, but there is no bridge he wants except that which will lead to him keeping his weapons of mass destruction. The efficiency of his terror machine is such that the last thing he needs to worry about, so long as that machine is intact, is Iraqi public opinion.
	It is difficult for people living in a democracy to begin to comprehend the all pervasive power of terror. It is amazing how you will see things one way if the only alternative is a horrible end, not just for yourself, but for your whole extended family. That is the reality of Saddam's terror machine and we should not be misled by the misuse of words like "parliament". The UN Security Council resolution is, in my opinion, excellent. Who would have believed beforehand that it would be adopted unanimously? It is an outstanding achievement of the professional diplomats involved, who all deserve our congratulations.
	Before leaving Iraq, I should like to address one issue often raised—the difference between UN resolutions on Iraq and other situations, especially Israel and the Palestinians. It is very important to be precise and not speak loosely about this. As I said in the debate in your Lordships' House on 24th September, the resolutions on Iraq are of a special nature—they are different from other conflict situations such as Kashmir or Israel. The Iraq resolutions embody and arise out of the terms agreed for a ceasefire in a war waged on a UN mandate against Iraq, and Iraq agreed these ceasefire terms and has proceeded to evade them for the past 11 years.
	Security Council resolutions concerning Iraq are all based on Chapter VII of the UN Charter, which covers,
	"Action with Respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace and Acts of Aggression".
	Chapter VII provides for the use of coercive force to counter these threats, in the form of economic or military sanctions or authorising collective military action. Every resolution the Security Council passed on Iraq came under Chapter VII.
	None of the resolutions relating to the Israeli/Arab conflict come under Chapter VII. They are mainly under Chapter VI, which is for the peaceful settlement of disputes. The famous resolutions 242 and 338 call on all the parties to negotiate a peace settlement—that puts the responsibility not just on Israel to act. Having said that, I want to make it very clear that I want a peaceful, two-state solution to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. As my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said in his speech to the Labour Party conference about UN resolutions applying to the Israeli/Palestinian situation:
	"They don't just apply to Israel, they apply to all parties".
	And, he said, the aims of final status negotiations should be,
	"an Israeli state, free from terror, recognised by the Arab world, and a viable Palestinian state based on the boundaries of 1967".
	I hope we can all agree with that.
	To turn to Al'Qaeda, as widely reported there has been a regrouping in the usual loose decentralised manner of Al'Qaeda under six leaders who appear to have taken over operative command of the network's military and financial planning, while whoever still survives of the senior leadership, including perhaps Osama bin Laden, are on the run or in hiding. According to some reports, out of 31 original commanders, six are dead, six are in captivity and 19 are unaccounted for.
	The six who seem to have emerged now from cover are two Egyptians, two Yemenis, although one of them may be a Saudi, one Jordanian and one Indonesian. What is known of their CVs makes impressive, if chilling, reading. Time prevents me from going into details today.
	So, as all of us realise, Al'Qaeda has not gone away, and it will not go away for some considerable time. As the Guildhall speech on Monday evening by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister made all too clear, we are in for a long haul and it is for us all to play whatever part we can.
	I would just like to make a plea for understanding of the enormously difficult task faced by all our public servants involved and, in particular, our intelligence and security service officers. It would be helpful if the media did not always rush to judgment and ask what went wrong, but reflect that it never knows when, as very often happens, things go right. The nature of intelligence on terrorism is particularly uncertain, based often on doubtful sources and giving only pieces of a very incomplete jigsaw, and always having to be assessed as to whether it is false or deliberate disinformation. Because the stakes are so high the pressures are sometimes almost unbearable. We should appreciate how fortunate we are in having such outstanding professional services at our disposal and for our defence.

Lord Howe of Aberavon: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay, in the debate and to pay tribute to the clarity and moderation with which she has presented some very important arguments. I reflect on the fact, I think correctly, that she spent quite a substantial part of her life in the Diplomatic Service. One is bound to wonder whether the nation would have been better served by her continued presence there or by her wisdom being available to us in this House. We start from a good beginning anyway. I thank the Minister for her introduction and noble Lords who have spoken subsequently.
	I cannot compete with the ambitious, omnivorocity of my noble friend Lord Howell but I certainly endorse his despair at the way in which the Gibraltar negotiations were conducted. There should be no apology for having started down that road—which is, after all, one that I designed—but there is much grief at the lack of finesse, to put it mildly, with which the operation was conducted. I say this with great regret in the presence of the noble Baroness, who understands the position.
	Every noble Lord who has spoken so far has drawn attention to the huge changes that have taken place since we last debated this subject on a Queen's Speech. It is impossible to exaggerate them. The most important, of course, is that the central, horrid problem of Iraq is being handled down the United Nations route and with the support of a unanimous resolution from the Security Council. It is a necessarily tough resolution, as others have sought to explain.
	It is interesting to reflect on a letter written to President Clinton nearly five years ago in January 1998 urging a change in his policy. Among other things, it stated that,
	"American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council".
	The signatories to that letter included Richard Armitage, Richard Perle, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and Robert Zoellick. We have moved a long way since then and the present Secretary of State and the present President of the United States deserve to be congratulated on that important change, as do, indeed, our own Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary and all the diplomats who helped to bring the resolution about.
	It is important to put that problem in a wider context, recognising, of course, that that is the context in which British forces may see action within months. The central point is that, throughout it all, restraint will be as necessary as resolution, wisdom as necessary as determination, if the authority and unity of the international partnership is to be maintained as it must be.
	That brings me to a question which may, at first sight, distress my noble friend Lord Howell. It concerns the imbalance in global power which makes it difficult always to be sure that we are handling these issues right, starting with a word about our closest ally—the country with which we have been more often involved in conflict against others than any other—the United States. The huge imbalance in power reflected by the massive strength of that country must be a cause of concern. American military expenditure, leaving all the soft power on one side, is greater than that of the next eight largest military powers combined.
	I was struck by an article which appeared in the New York Times last spring, which was written by one of our distinguished historians, Timothy Garton Ash, entitled The peril of too much power. This is an important point and I make it without apology. He said:
	"America today has too much power for anyone's good, including its own".
	Before I go any further, I stress that I say that out of no hostility whatever to the United States. Indeed, most of my life has been devoted in one way or another to working with Americans and in admiration of their country. But Garton Ash went on to express concern:
	"It would be dangerous even for an archangel to wield so much power. The writers of the American Constitution wisely determined that no single locus of power, however benign, should predominate ... Every power should therefore be checked by at least one other".
	Who and what in today's world is to provide that balance? The international institutions certainly; and they have played an important part in it. But, alone, they are not credible. There can be only one answer: Europe—the collective civilisations from which America itself was born but which make up the European Union. If it did not exist, it would have to be invented.
	I immediately make it plain to my noble friend that I am not calling for a European superpower of the kind that he sometimes fears so much. What we have created is already a major economic power, and is a major force to our benefit in trade negotiations and in the aid market. But we must acknowledge that, in terms of military capacity, the gap between the nations of the European Union and the United States is catastrophic. That sits uneasily with the history of the past two or three decades.
	I remember confrontations, if one may put it that way, at one NATO meeting at Halifax some years ago, in which Hans van den Broek, the benign Netherlands Foreign Minister, was rash enough to quote a public opinion poll in his country. People had said by 60 per cent to 12 per cent that the United States was more aggressive than the Soviet Union. Noble Lords may imagine the response of George Shultz. He said in due course that he would go on being "correctly aggressive" in support of American interests and in giving leadership to the alliance. I admired him for that. But the alliance has changed since then: the links that bind us, the interests that we have, are not the same as they were. The principal threat that provided the glue for the old structure of NATO has gone and the relative strength of the European and American members has moved adversely ever since.
	The position has been analysed with great clarity by the chairman of the European Task Force on European Defence, Julian Lindley-French, in an article in the latest issue of International Affairs. He draws attention to the American view, which thinks in terms of "conflict inevitability", and to the European view which, alas, thinks in terms of "conflict myopia". It is against that background that the United States has massively re-armed while within Europe there has been steady disarmament under the rubric of "sharing the peace dividend". We have been juggling with a series of initials—CFSP and ESDP—as though that kind of institution-mongering, as though subtly-worded texts of communiques, are going to answer the question. My fear—again I borrow a word from the author whom I have just quoted—is that all the European efforts in this direction are in danger of being "WEU-ified". I spent some four or five years trying to help to breathe life into that set of initials and it did not get us very far.
	I stress that there is nothing anti-American in what I am saying. It is part of an attempt to inspire, or at least to urge, our present Government to maintain a stronger commitment than they have thus shown to vitalising and energising the European share in NATO and to get our partners to do so.
	I can join my noble friend Lord Howell—and we are truly friends—in denouncing many of the shortcomings of many of our partners in the European Union. But the answer is not therefore to despair of that organisation, but to be even more emphatic as regards the need to achieve what we really want from that.
	I had intended to refer briefly to the Middle Eastern problem. However, I shall respect the pleas on all sides for compliance with our time resolution and conclude my remarks. I am confident that the noble Lord, Lord Wright, will hardly allow that issue to be neglected.

Lord Maclennan of Rogart: My Lords, I have the happy opportunity of following the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon. His geopolitical perspective is congenial to my own view and closer to my own perspective than that enunciated from the Front Bench by the noble Lord, Lord Howell. Indeed, it is a happy prelude to what I feel I ought to say to your Lordships about the work of the Convention on the Future of Europe to which the noble Baroness happily referred in her opening speech.
	It is right to recognise that, in respect of the future of Europe, the citizens of Europe—if their opinions can be measured at all effectively across the now 15 countries, perhaps to be 25—would appear to favour greater coherence in the delivery of a common foreign policy. No sphere of European intervention is more clearly understood or more urgently desired. That is said against the background of all the evident inconsistencies, weaknesses and incoherences which enable the noble Lord, Lord Howell, not inaccurately to describe the limited capabilities which the European Union has brought to bear upon the great international crises that have plagued our debates since the previous Queen's Speech.
	Not only is there a predisposition to accept the competence of Europe in these fields; there is also a strong desire on the part of member governments to act more coherently and more effectively in support of United States policies when they are seen, as they have been, to be leading the world in defence against the international terrorism of 9/11, the threat of the possession and use by Iraq, in defiance of the United Nations, of weapons of mass destruction.
	It is wise to recall the instant response of the European Union to the events of September last year. In that short space of time there was an evident willingness to shoulder global responsibilities in Europe. Efforts were made to co-ordinate humanitarian and reconstruction aid. Troika delegations were sent to the countries bordering Afghanistan and to central Asia. It is a fact that the biggest donor of aid to Afghanistan is Europe. Through the efforts of the High Representative, Javier Solana, the conflict for a management profile of the European Union has been remarkably strengthened within the quartet.
	It is right to recognise that the Laeken European Council has sought to take that process forward: to develop the operational capability of the ESDP, the conflict prevention tools, the diplomatic role of the troika and an improved early warning system, and the rapid reaction mechanism to provide initial financing. These are valuable steps in the right direction.
	It is clear that at present Europe is not in a position to react in a consistent, coherent and effective way, given the huge gulf, to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, referred, between the military capabilities of the United States and those of the constituent member countries of the European Union. That is why from the beginning there has been a sharp focus in the Convention on the Future of Europe on how these competencies ought to be strengthened.
	One of the very first reports to emerge from a working group under the chairmanship of former prime minister Giuliano Amato was on attributing to the European Union a single legal personality. Thus, it is advocating the effective ascription to Europe of something that lawyers, in the event, believed to exist, but recognising, more importantly, the need for coherence in the European Union's exercise of its diplomatic initiatives and in the support that needs to be given to whoever is to take the lead, be it the high representative, the presidency or a permanent president, as adumbrated by the Prime Minister. Out of that debate, in which I played a part, came a clear recognition that the present arrangements, which fracture the deliberations and negotiations—a suitable example has been the trade and co-operation negotiations with Iran—are not the most effective way to bring to bear upon the international scene all the economic, political and security strengths that are needed in the construction of new relationships. Most observers recognise the value of the role of the office of the high representative and how effectively it has been discharged. As we build that office, we should not see a bifurcation of the bureaucracies between the forces of the high representatives and the council and those of the Commission on the other side. There is a need to bring together these constituent elements of effectiveness.
	The debate is continuing in a working group in the convention under the chairmanship of Jean-Luc Dehaene, the former prime minister of Belgium. A report is anticipated shortly, in the preparation of which Mr Peter Hain has played a part. I do not doubt that it will underline the desirability of seeking to unify the preparation and delivery of foreign policy initiatives and giving a greater reality to the common foreign and security policy. It will do that by addressing the unsatisfactory aspects of the budgetary arrangements that are necessary to provide the sinews to make effective the interventions of forces. That applies whether they be peace-keeping forces on a very modest scale such as in Macedonia, or the wider ambitions that the council may have.
	It would be valuable to hear this House's views on these matters. I hope that there will be an early opportunity to consider how the common interests of Europe in the delivery of effective foreign policy can best be delivered. It is not possible to develop these arguments at length in the time that is available today.

Lord Owen: My Lords, it is a great pleasure to commend whole-heartedly and fully Her Majesty's Government's policy on Iraq. It has been an extremely difficult period, not just over the past few weeks and months but ever since the need to impose a no-fly zone in the north and south following the appalling attack on the Kurds in 1991. That policy has virtually run out on us. We were sustaining it because there was nothing better. But sanctions were no longer having any effect, massive leakage of oil was going out from Iraq through Turkey, Syria, Jordan and the Gulf. It was also becoming increasingly hard to persuade people that they should make available airfields in surrounding countries.
	This resolution, as was eloquently described by the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay, every word of whose speech I agreed with, is a great tribute to two statesmen in particular: President Bush and our Prime Minister. But it also a tribute to the Diplomatic Service in the Foreign Office and the State Department. I could not imagine a better outcome than that resolution. But I am sure no-one is under any illusion about it. There may now be serious defaults. Within that resolution there is now clear authority to take action if there is a default. It does not require another resolution, though it would of course be desirable to have one.
	Elsewhere, I see a foreign policy of very clear objectives, which I totally support. I am very pleased by the proposals that have come forward from the United Nations and De Soto over Cyprus. I know that they were greatly helped by the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay. It seems very fair to both Greek and Turkish Cypriots. I hope that it is agreed quickly. It allows me to say what I hope will be the British policy now when the new leader of the majority party in the Turkish parliament visits this country and that a way will be found to enable him to become prime minister of Turkey. I hope that Britain will make it clear that we support Turkey's membership of the European Union. Some work remains to be done on it. But we should seek when enlarging the European Union to give Turkey a firm and clear timescale for entry. I know that this will be a major challenge to the European Union. I do not say it lightly. I used to believe that Europe ended at the Bosphorus. I did not see how it would be possible to take Turkey into membership. But I also used to think it would be impossible to take in the former Soviet Union. I now believe that it is wise for the European Union to conduct itself in a way that would make it possible for Russia to become a member of the European Union so that Europe does not end at the Urals. That, too, will be an immense challenge, and the timescale for that is some distance away. Time will still be needed for Turkey's entry. But, with Greece supporting their entry, and with a new Turkish government clearly trying to help to reach a resolution in Cyprus, I believe that there will be progress and considerable achievements.
	All is looking so very well in my own personal relations with the Government on foreign policy that I am even hopeful that the Treasury will look at the eurozone at the moment—and I say it without great relish—that the problems with the so-called growth and stability pact and the need for the European Central Bank to recover or to perhaps assert a greater authority that they will judge that it is not the time to put the issue in a referendum to the British people. We need a good deal more time for the eurozone itself to sort out the inevitable transition period. The technical handling of the coins and notes was very satisfactory, but there are considerable difficulties ahead.
	Despite the gloomy fact that the Federal Republic of Germany has taken such a markedly different stance from us and many other European Union countries on Iraq, it is a welcome sign that the Germans are ready, with the Dutch, to take the leadership of the peacekeeping forces in Afghanistan and to argue that that should be based as far as possible on NATO assets and support and to work towards a situation in which when, in six months, their role is passed on to another country it might be possible for the operation to be NATO-led. In the same way as NATO led the stabilisation force in Bosnia and Kosovo, it would include other NATO countries and possibly the Russian Federation—even in Afghanistan by then—as they have played a major part in the Balkans.
	These are very important and interesting issues. I shall say no more. I apologise that I cannot stay for the end of the debate because I have to be in Prague for a debate about NATO, which has been brought about by Russia, and I shall therefore sit down and make an even smaller contribution. At the moment, British foreign policy has shown that it is possible both to be an extremely loyal and committed member of the European Union and to respect the relationships with the United States, using our independence in foreign policy and our freedom for manoeuvre as a significant country and a permanent member of the Security Council. That balance is well reflected in an extremely interesting article in today's Financial Times by its correspondent in Washington in which a White House spokesman says that we can reasonably say now that Britain is the second most influential country in the world economically, politically and diplomatically. With skill and finesse, that position can be maintained for some years ahead.

Lord Biffen: My Lords, I join the noble Lord, Lord Owen, in apologising for not being able to attend the wind-up of today's debate. I apologise in particular to the Government Front Bench.
	I was struck by the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay, as she deliberated on the horrors of the Iraqi regime. Nobody in the Chamber would dare contest that. However, it made me think how extraordinarily passive many of the neighbours of Iraq have been as we have elaborated the horrors that lie ahead. I think that is because we so often look at the United States through the eyes of the first world, whereas we are confronted by a substantial number of countries with a very different outlook. They see the United States very much through the eyes of the third world. That third world view must be taken into account. We deceive ourselves if we think that that view is without justice or integrity. Those countries fear a political situation in the United States heavily dominated by influences favourable to Israel and reinforced by the powerful evangelical Christian lobby. They are apprehensive of an American economy driven by high levels of consumption.
	The view on the Kyoto protocol is not the product of the administration; it is the consequence of the popular view in the United States. With that view comes a demand for resources, which focuses on oil. The relationship of the United States with the wider world in that context is fraught with warning for the western world.
	In that context and given the current developments, that resentment in the third world is more evident than ever, even if it is not always powerfully expressed. It has one immediate challenge and focus: the relationship between Israel and Palestine. If there is one issue that is forcing its way to the top of the agenda, it must be once again to see what can be done to bring about a settlement in the Middle East. There is no mention of that in the Queen's Speech. I do not object to that, but, just for presentational purposes, I would have been happy to see half a phrase relating to a Middle East settlement as well as the problems of international terror.
	The Palestinian issue is of growing moment. When we think of international terror, our minds turn to the tragedies in New York just over a year ago and the threats that came to us from the Home Office recently, all concentrating on what it meant for the great urban centres of the western world. However, there is a wider area that is prone to Al'Qaeda techniques. We had prior notice of what could happen in the wider world generally in Indonesia. Al'Qaeda can strike with considerable success in areas with weak governmental arrangements. The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute has said:
	"Last year only one of 24 conflicts worldwide was, as it were, a classic war, between functioning states".
	All the others were in failing states or in circumstances approximating to that. It is therefore essential that those mounting the war against Al'Qaeda must be able at least to win the hearts and minds of the third world countries that are likely to be affected. We have our own experience of confronting the IRA in Northern Ireland. We know how difficult it was to counter that when so many of the population were passive rather than active in supporting the forces of authority. When General Templer conducted magnificently successful military operations in Malaya, they were sustained by a conscientious effort to secure the hearts and minds of a population who might otherwise have been passive. That is the challenge that is now emerging.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Symons, said that we have strong and effective relations with the United States. Let us be clear: only the United States can bring about the circumstances for a peace settlement in the Middle East and give some equity and justice to the Palestinians. I fear that the United States currently appears all too much like a great technological giant. We are only too happy to have America's skills and technology, but they must ultimately remember that technology is not enough.

Baroness Northover: My Lords, it is a great pleasure to speak in this debate in my new role as spokesperson for the Liberal Democrat Benches on international development. I venture into this field with some trepidation, given the enormous expertise in this House, but reducing the huge imbalance between wealth and desperate poverty has to be one of the most pressing concerns of our time. This is a vital area for us to address. I am very glad that the Government have chosen to mention their international development programme in the Queen's Speech.
	The Government talk about the Johannesburg agreements. They say that they will focus on tackling climate change and finding new ways to meet our energy needs. That is clearly welcome. So, too, is the pledge to work for a more effective global effort to reduce poverty. The Government also state that Britain's aid budget will be increased; that, too, is very welcome. However, will that increase be significant? Will this be new money, or does this relate to commitments that have already been given? In relation to that, can the noble Baroness say when she believes the Government might reach the target of 0.7 per cent of GDP, which has been an aspiration for so long? It is surely an indictment of Britain that we are still so far adrift after all these years.
	The Government further state that they intend to work for a successful outcome to the current round of world trade negotiations in a way that benefits industrialised and developing countries alike. We agree with this commitment, but are concerned that the Government have a long way to go. As the noble Baroness said in her introductory remarks, CAP reform is of course crucial to that effort. Once more, it seems to have been thrown into doubt as a result of recent events in the European Union.
	There are surely few more pressing needs in the world than helping those in profound poverty. The depths of that poverty mean that when something goes wrong, it goes disastrously wrong. We can see that as, once again, we face the prospect of famine in Africa. There have been many warnings. Not enough has been done to ensure that countries are less reliant on food aid. Mechanisms for delivering the food aid, which is still so vital, are not sufficiently robust. Food aid that has been promised is not getting through to those who need it.
	The World Food Programme's donor appeal for southern Africa has received only 40 percent of the required funding, and has delivered less than 14 per cent of the food aid required in that region. None of the food needed by Mozambique has got through; only 5 per cent of what Zambia needs has been delivered. As we are only too aware, Ethiopia and Eritrea are facing similar food shortages. In Ethiopia, more than 6 million people are at risk. In Eritrea, one-third of the population is at risk.
	The situation in Zimbabwe is particularly difficult. The immediate priority must be to ensure that those who need food aid receive it and that political manipulation is reduced as far as possible. Overall, we have to ensure that the United Nations mechanisms, which are supposed to be in place for dealing with such emergencies, are well funded; that those assisting are well trained; and that all involved are well prepared. In the case of Zimbabwe, more must be done, particularly through the Commonwealth and the UN, to uphold the rule of law.
	We all know—but it has to be made a reality if ever we are to get beyond these cycles of famine—that we have to help the poorest countries become more self-sufficient. The key to that is a reduction in debt, greater economic and political stability, and vastly improved health and education services. Debt levels remain unsustainable. The Monterrey round produced some new money, but not enough. Other aid and trade initiatives are undermined by failure to achieve more progress on the issue. NePAD provides something of a useful framework for addressing debt problems in return for progress on governance. Rewarding countries with good records on human rights and the rule of law is clearly worth while, especially if it encourages other countries to follow suit.
	The poorer the country, of course, the less its people are able to sustain any kind of further misfortune. And a major tragedy of greater and greater proportions is that created by HIV/AIDS, which has reduced life expectancy in sub-Saharan Africa from 62 years to 47 years. One fifth of the Zambian population is infected, yet that country is spending 30 per cent more on debt than on health. As Oxfam puts it:
	"The HIV/AIDS pandemic is an unparalleled setback in human development. In the space of a few years it has rolled back the achievements of decades, destroying the lives of millions of people and compromising prospects for recovery in the process".
	HIV/AIDS strikes at every aspect of society. Its public health costs are enormous, but it extends far beyond that. Those who are ill cannot easily work. They cannot support themselves or their families, or make their contribution to the greater prosperity of their society. The disease has had a disastrous effect on education. In 1999 alone, Zambia lost 1,600 teachers from AIDS. If often forces families to take their children out of school, whether because of sickness, loss of income, or to take care of sick family members. HIV/AIDS is thus creating costs that extend beyond children today to the children of tomorrow.
	Women account for a large share of the population affected by HIV/AIDS. One study covering 11 African countries found that average infection rates were over five times higher among teenage girls than among teenage boys, and three times higher for women in their early twenties than for men. In parts of southern Africa, HIV prevalence among pregnant women often exceeds 30 per cent in urban areas. And almost everywhere, the burden of caring is borne disproportionately by women. Girls are taken out of school, and women out of work, to care for sick relatives. HIV/AIDS is clearly having a catastrophic effect on the prospects for Africa's future. Far more must be done to address the situation.
	There are many speakers in this diverse debate today, and I realise that time is very short. Suffice to say, noble Lords on these Benches welcome much of what the Government are doing. However, we urge the Government and our international partners to recognise with increased commitment the necessity of urgent and fundamental action to tackle with long-term solutions some of the problems of the poorest countries. It is surely not only right that we do so, but also in the interest of the future stability and economic prosperity of all of us that we do so.

Lord Wright of Richmond: My Lords, perhaps I may first apologise to the House. A long-standing commitment this evening is likely to make it impossible for me to be here for the winding-up speeches.
	It will not surprise your Lordships—it will certainly not surprise the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon—to know that I propose to concentrate on the situation in the Middle East. I shall not say much about the question that has understandably attracted so much attention in recent months; namely, Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. I wish, however, to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, for answering so clearly my earlier question about the Government's objectives in Iraq.
	As the Minister knows, I was unable to be in the Chamber on the afternoon of 7th November when the Foreign Secretary's Statement on Iraq was debated. I should like briefly to add my own words of congratulations to the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary, and my former colleague, Sir Jeremy Greenstock and his staff in New York, for the unanimous support that they managed to achieve for Security Council Resolution No. 1441.
	Last week, the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, said:
	"A few weeks ago many people thought that there was no chance of getting this before the United Nations, let alone a chance of getting a resolution, let alone a chance of getting a resolution as tough as this one".—[Official Report, 7/11/02; col. 925.]
	As a former ambassador to the Syrian Arab Republic and having had the privilege of discussing Iraq with President Bashar al Assad when I called on him with a parliamentary delegation in early September, I should add to the "let alone" list—
	"let alone with the positive vote of the Syrian Representative on the Security Council".
	That is a considerable tribute to the statesmanship of President Assad whose country has itself been a victim of both Iraqi terrorism and Israeli occupation, and to the diplomatic contacts between the Foreign Secretary and his Syrian colleague.
	I wish, however, to dwell on one aspect of the Arab-Israel situation, to which the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, referred. I warmly welcome the Prime Minister's remarks in his Guildhall speech on Monday, repeated by the Minister today, when he talked of the need to move quickly toward an Israeli state recognised by all and a viable Palestinian state. However, so long as the expansion of illegal settlements continues in occupied Palestinian territory and ever more Palestinian land is absorbed behind the so-called "security fence", we shall shortly reach a situation—if indeed we have not already reached it—in which talk of a viable Palestinian state will have become meaningless.
	With an election pending in Israel, it will no doubt be argued that this is a difficult if not impossible time to persuade the United States Administration to bring pressure to bear on Prime Minister Sharon, or that we should resolve the question of Iraq before making serious moves towards a peace settlement. I would argue, however, that the situation in Palestine is far too urgent for that. Furthermore, the success of the United States in following the multilateral track in Iraq, the standing of President Bush following the congressional elections and the unstinting support which the Prime Minister has given President Bush on Iraq surely give both of them a unique opportunity to bring effective and immediate pressure to bear on Prime Minister Sharon and on Foreign Minister Netanyahu to reverse a process which is creating serious and possibly fatal blockages on the roadmap towards a just and comprehensive peace settlement.
	On 31st October, the Guardian reported that a recent opinion poll showed that almost four in five Israelis are prepared to dismantle almost all illegal settlements—which, as I see the Foreign Secretary confirmed in the other place, now account for an astonishing 41 per cent of the total land area in the West Bank, let alone occupied Golan. In spite of this, and in flagrant disregard of repeated calls by Senator George Mitchell and others to freeze all settlement activity, the Israeli Government continue to finance their expansion. Unless the United States Administration can be persuaded to bring effective and urgent pressure—and be seen to bring that pressure to bear—on the Israeli Government to reverse this illegal activity, then I see little prospect of any roadmap leading to anywhere other than renewed violence and killings on both sides and the continued tragic injustices of the situation in Palestine.
	Can the Prime Minister not persuade President Bush of the seriousness and urgency of the need to reverse the illegal settlement policy which has been pursued, virtually without a word of criticism from Washington, by successive Israeli governments? If he can, it would give an important and much needed signal to the Arab world, and more widely to the international Muslim community, that the United States, with our encouragement, is at last ready to bring a more even-handed approach to a situation which, as I have said previously in this House, carries as great, if not a greater, threat to the security of the Middle East and to the war against terrorism as any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Indeed, it might even mitigate some of the popular backlash in the Muslim world that will inevitably follow any military action that turns out to be necessary in Iraq.
	I should like to remind noble Lords of two quotations. The first is the passage in the so-called Balfour Declaration—that is, Mr Balfour's letter of 2nd November 1917 to Lord Rothschild, in which he stipulated that it should be,
	"clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine".
	The second is a quotation from the autobiography of Dr Weizmann, the first president of Israel, in which he said:
	"I am certain that the world will judge the Jewish State by what it will do to the Arabs".

Lord Brennan: My Lords, a week ago, the Foreign Secretary said of the situation with regard to Iraq that this was a critical moment for the world and for the integrity of our system of international law. He was right. It is a noble objective to seek world peace through world law, even if that occasionally means the use of force. However, that always means, does it not, a war within the law? I should like to make four short points on this theme of international action within international law.
	The first point is on the role of international law. From the Kellogg-Briand Pact up to the charter and beyond, the nations of the world have sought to avoid future conflict by collective means. The Security Council, under Chapter 7 of the United Nations Charter, carries the primary responsibility of action to preserve international peace. This is therefore a moment of considerable congratulation for the Government and for the government of the United States on, in the midst of serious tension with Iraq, choosing the route of law and going to the Security Council. Those who criticised the Security Council's past weaknesses have had to accept its current strength. The decision was made unanimously in the pursuit of international peace.
	The second point is on America and the law. How right it was for the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, so clearly to identify the present power of the United States of America. I would go further and identify the consequent need for the United States to exercise its power within the law that is recognised by the countries that have to accept that power as a fact. The hegemony of such a nation carries a special burden and also a special duty of self-restraint. Power demands leadership, and good leadership demands a special self-restraint when acting with others.
	The wisdom of such an approach is surely evidenced by two consequences of last week's resolution. First, the resolution shows the United States that, in the proper exercise of its own power, it can achieve its objectives with its allies and companion countries within the United Nations. Secondly, it accords with the view of the majority of the American people. In this House we often talk of the United Kingdom and America in the context of governmental relations, but ours is an alliance of people. The majority of the American people and the majority of our people wish action on Iraq to be taken multilaterally and within the law. Collective security demands collective action according to the United Nations Charter.
	In a short time we may face major decisions. It would be imprudent to make legal assessments of future hypotheses which may be confounded by future events but the law gives us a path of right action: first, in relation to the resolution of last week. A material breach will self-evidently depend upon the evidence submitted by the inspectors in whom the United Nations has reposed its confidence, not upon the individual political assessment of member states alone. A decision that there has been a material breach must be based on transparent and compelling evidence. If such evidence exists, then, as Kofi Annan said a few days ago, the Security Council must face its responsibilities. If we ask for action through the United Nations, we must accept the grave consequences of a war if the United Nations, through the Security Council, says that it is necessary.
	If, however, there is no resolution in favour of war against Iraq, a critical question of law and of the public interest arises. In this morning's Guardian the Foreign Secretary said,
	"Of course, military action must only ever be sanctioned as an option of last resort when all diplomatic means have been exhausted—and [most importantly] it must always be consistent with our obligations under the terms of international law".
	If there is no Security Council decision for war against Iraq, and if there emerges an argument that there is some residual right of individual states to take action to secure compliance by a defaulting state, that is a totally different state of affairs in international law. There is no legal basis that convincingly shows it to be a residual right but if we have to consider whether it is, it demands serious debate. Its precedent value for unacceptable action in the future is immense. Therefore, with regard to the resolution, if there is a breach, legally and constitutionally it is surely the duty of our Government to ascertain the will of Parliament before war occurs, upon whatever basis it is said to be required.
	If there is war with Iraq, let us expect the following: that it will be necessary and proportionate; that it will do its best as an operation to protect the civilians we seek to protect; that there is a plan for the post-conflict situation—regime change from dictatorship to chaos is no change—and, finally, that we observe the Geneva Conventions because we are decent people. We do not want legal black holes such as at Guantanamo. We want the world to respect the force of law.
	I have spoken as a lawyer but I hope also as a citizen. In all the decisions I have outlined that may fall to be taken, the merit of such critical decisions is not to be found in the vigour with which they are made but more in the intellectual rigour which has led to them. But, above all, they should be based upon systems of law that command the confidence of us all.

Lord Burnham: My Lords, I totally understand and accept the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Bach, from this debate. I wish him the very best of fortune in his endeavours in Washington. Nevertheless, I intend, not surprisingly, to concentrate on a subject with which the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, is not entirely unfamiliar.
	Events are moving so fast, in the Gulf and elsewhere where British forces are deployed, that anything that is said today may well be out of date tomorrow. It is with this problem that our political and military masters have to wrestle. The buzzword of today is "concurrence". No one denies that the 1998 SDR is now out of date. Since the publication date of that document British forces have routinely been deployed on more operations concurrently than were then envisaged. There is no doubt that frequent smaller operations are becoming the pattern. That pattern is difficult to handle, particularly in logistic terms for each operation needs a fleet of "enablers". It is one thing to find front-line troops; the back-up is more tricky—there is only my noble friend Lord Attlee. Those smaller operations, when a number are being conducted at one time, are so much more difficult to handle than one large one.
	This week it has been announced that 15,000 men are being prepared to be deployed in Iraq. That is a large operation. But what will the Ministry of Defence do if Afghanistan and Northern Ireland blow up at the same time? We must ask if a war against Iraq and the war against terrorism can be conducted at the same time. The enabling assets include deployable headquarters, communications and communicators, deployed logistical support, engineers and movements personnel. If there are not the personnel to do those jobs, the efficacy of the operation will be severely endangered. Although in theory some of the holes can be filled by NATO or EU forces, in many cases that just will not work. We have to rely on what we can produce ourselves. The planners have to address themselves to those points. Some of the problems are relatively inexpensive. For this Government, and indeed for any other, life is a struggle between the Exchequer and the department that wishes to spend money.
	Defence has been doing slightly better of late but there are still nothing like the resources available for all the jobs that need to be done. That was shown particularly in my noble friend's list of deficiencies in equipment, which I find simply terrifying. Some of the problems, such as the IT programmes, are relatively inexpensive. But any temptation to make short-term cuts in the hope that they will not be noticed because they are "invisible" must be resisted. Those problems for the planners must be brought into the open.
	Front Line First was the title of a previous planning extravaganza. Today the front line is relatively in hand, it is the back-up that needs work done. Nothing that I am saying is new. It has all been included in published documents under the imprimatur of the Secretary of State. He has said,
	"for some considerable time many of our servicemen and women have been working at or near, and in some cases beyond, the boundaries of what was planned in the SDR".
	The problem of personnel is immense as material can alleviate but cannot remove the need for men. My honourable friend Bernard Jenkin and Mr Syd Rapson have been trying in another place to find out when the Secretary of State expects to publish the findings of the inquiry into Armed Forces personnel issues. They are not having much joy. They have been told that the first-phase findings are likely to be published in the spring next year with the final phase in the autumn. Sadly, things are going so quickly that we do not have that much time. Recruitment is to some extent holding up and certainly a number of regiments are getting more recruits than they are allowed to handle. However, the Government's policy is damaging the capability of the services to keep those men. The need for proper pensions, properly explained, is urgent.
	It has now been established, I understand, that unmarried partners will be treated as spouses, but the Armed Forces have still not done enough to keep the womenfolk of their men happy. That is an absolute requirement. Failure to meet it will be fatal. It is bad enough at the moment. Our servicemen join the services to defend the country in the broadest sense of the term. They will not do so when so many of our units are, for instance, being temporarily laid up performing as firemen for when the "40 per centers" go on strike. Those strikes present immense practical difficulties, but the C-in-C Fleet is not the only one complaining about the destruction of our maritime capability. In a world of shortages, probably the worst is the shortage of fast pilots and trained and qualified submariners. I hope that the Minister will be able to assuage doubts that that problem, which is now extremely serious, will not become desperate in two or three years' time.
	I must return to my old hobbyhorse, the tri-service discipline Bill. When are going to get it? I do not need to tell the Minister that it is, I believe, four general elections ago that we were promised it. The increasing scale of multi-service operations is making a Bill increasingly essential. Will the Minister tell us why we cannot go on and get it? Provided that it receives a modicum of pre-legislative scrutiny, it should not be too contentious. Most of the battles have already been fought—and lost. In principle, such a Bill will certainly be welcomed in both Houses.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 3 p.m.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	[The Sitting was suspended from 1.32 until 3 p.m.]

Fire Dispute

Lord Rooker: My Lords, with permission, I shall repeat a Statement made by the Deputy Prime Minister in the other place. The Statement is as follows:
	"With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a Statement on the present national Fire Service strike. The Government believe this strike to be wrong, unnecessary and unreasonable.
	"I last made a statement to the House on Tuesday, 22nd October, when I set out the history of the dispute and undertook to keep the House informed. The House will recall that the Fire Brigades Union's claim, which was made on 28th May and remains in place, is for a 40 per cent, 'no-strings-attached' pay increase for fire-fighters, a 50 per cent pay increase for control room staff, parity of pay for retained fire-fighters, and a review of the 1978 pay formula that has governed their wages for the past 25 years.
	"At the national joint council meeting on 2nd September, the employers finalised their offer of a 4 per cent pay increase and requested a joint appeal with the FBU for an independent review of Fire Service pay and conditions. The FBU rejected the offer and the review.
	"The employers therefore made their request direct to the Government and, three days later on 5th September, the Government set up an independent review under Sir George Bain. The Fire Brigades Union refused to participate in the review or to discuss its terms of reference and, indeed, attempted to discredit it. On 18th October, it announced a programme of 36 days of national strikes due to start on 29th October.
	"My right honourable friend the Minister for Local Government and the Regions and I held a series of meetings with the FBU on 24th and 25th October. Those discussions resulted in the cancellation of the first two 48-hour strikes and subsequently the first eight-day action was converted into the present 48-hour stoppage.
	"Negotiations between the local government employers and the FBU resumed on 30th October. And, because the Fire Brigades Union was not prepared to wait until mid-December, Sir George Bain agreed to bring forward a 'position paper' on 11th November. Sir George's final report will be available in a few weeks' time. I am extremely grateful to Sir George and his team for their efforts and look forward to the final report.
	"Sir George's position paper was made available to the Fire Brigades Union, the employers and the Government on Monday morning. The paper is comprehensive, practical and forward-looking. I urge all Members to read it carefully. It sets out a vision for a single, more broadly based and modernised service with multiple roles offering a wider range of services and expertise. It proposes a reward structure in which individuals are valued for the contribution they make. It encourages a more diverse workforce with a wider range of career paths, responsibilities and skills and makes clear that pay and modernisation must go hand in hand and be consistent with the Government's public sector pay policy. The paper recommends an increase in the pay bill of up to 11 per cent over two years, subject to necessary and long-overdue modernisation.
	"The employers and the Fire Brigades Union met for further discussions on Tuesday morning and the employers tabled a revised offer. That offer proposed an immediate increase of 4 per cent backdated to 7th November and, subject to the modernisation proposals set out in the Bain report, a further 7 per cent increase in 12 months' time in November 2003.
	"At present, a qualified fire-fighter earns £21,500 a year. Under this offer, a qualified fire-fighter could earn £23,960 a year and a leading fire-fighter could earn £25,656 a year. In London, where London weighting allowances apply, a qualified fire-fighter could earn £28,268 a year and a leading fire-fighter could earn £29,964 a year—just a few pounds short of the £30,000 a year demanded by the FBU. That compares very well with nurses, teachers and other public servants.
	"Sir George always made it clear that his position paper was not designed to end the strike but to provide the negotiators with a menu of options for negotiation which would put in place substantial reform in exchange for substantial pay increases. The Government remain convinced that the Bain review is the key to resolving this dispute and to providing the basis for a modern fire service equipped to deal with modern demands.
	"Unfortunately, when the employers tabled their pay offer on Tuesday morning, the Fire Brigades Union walked out and at six o'clock last night started a 48-hour strike. Under any reasonable circumstances, the FBU would be sitting down with the employers to discuss the Bain proposals. Instead, 18,000 members of the Armed Forces, supported by the police, are on the streets today taking the place of the fire-fighters. They are using the stand-by fleet of 'Green Goddesses' and sophisticated rescue apparatus and cutting equipment. I am sure the whole House will want to express its appreciation for the services of the Armed Forces, the police and all the others who are actively engaged in providing cover during this strike.
	"But this is an emergency, not a replacement, fire service. No matter how professional our Armed Forces and no matter how much they train, it is clear that they could not provide the same level of service that we normally expect, particularly where major incidents, such as a terrorist attack or a rail crash, are concerned.
	"I spoke to the General Secretary of the FBU about that again this morning. He was unable to sign up to an agreement setting out how his members would respond in the event of a major incident. He has assured me that his members would consider responding to a 'catastrophic' incident if called upon to do so. I have no doubt that individual fire-fighters would want to help, as some did last night.
	"But we cannot run a system on the basis that assistance might be available after precious minutes have been lost and with ambiguity about what kind of incident fire-fighters would respond to. So it is with huge regret that I inform the House that we have no agreement on major incidents. And the Fire Brigades Union has not given an undertaking to abide even by the spirit of the 1979 TUC Code on the Provision of Emergency or Essential Services. I believe that that adds to the wrong and irresponsible decisions that the FBU has taken. The Government and, I am sure, the House and the general public regret that decision to strike without any further discussion of the Bain proposals.
	"It is with great sadness that I have to inform the House that overnight there have been four terrible fire-related deaths. I am sure that the thoughts of the whole House are with the families of those who died. Those deaths and the death of Leicester fire-fighter, Rob Miller, on 31st October tragically serve to remind us of the daily danger posed by fire and of the vital work that the fire-fighters do. On average, more than 11 members of the public die each week in fire-related incidents.
	"I have to report to the House that we have received reports of a large number of hoax calls, which means that our already limited service is stretched even further, putting even more lives at risk. It is hard to understand the mentality of people who do that at any time, let alone during a fire strike at a time of heightened sensitivity. But let there be no doubt: the Crown Prosecution Service will take action against anyone caught making hoax calls, and I think that the public will hope to see hoax callers dealt with severely.
	"Against that background, talking, negotiating and discussions are better than the withdrawal of labour. I continue to believe that the Bain report is the right way forward. In the past 24 hours we have heard that the Fire Brigades Union's General Secretary has an alternative vision for modernisation. It would have been better if that vision had been put to the Bain review to form part of the debate. Even now, there is an opportunity to make an input. Sir George's position paper is not a final report. It has been put forward at this stage to help negotiation.
	"The employers have made clear that they stand ready to continue discussions at any time. Would it not be better to negotiate? Would it not be better to sit down again? An eight-day strike can lead to only more deaths, more injuries and more distress. Our joint obligation—that of the Government, the employers and the fire-fighters—is to provide the highest level of safety. That is our job. We all have an obligation to work towards it—all of us: the Government, the employers and the unions.
	"And if, once this 48-hour strike is over, we then face an eight-day strike, the Government may have to review many of the issues which, until now, we have kept off the table. We have bent over backwards to be fair and reasonable. We have been met with action that is wrong, unjustified and puts lives at risk. Faced with that, the Government will do what we have to do to protect the public. I say: 'talk, don't walk'."
	My Lords, that concludes the Deputy Prime Minister's Statement.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement and for keeping the House up-to-date with this dreadful situation. I thank him too for the courtesy afforded me of being able to see the Statement in advance.
	This is a grave day. The Government have set up an inquiry which to all intents and purposes has been kicked in the teeth by the Fire Brigades Union. As the Minister indicated, the interim report was provided as a basis for negotiation, but the terms of a high percentage reward of some 11 per cent for revised working arrangements have already been rejected by the union. The union may feel that it has a good case, but there are men now out on the streets, our soldiers, doing the job its members should be doing, and receiving less reward than they were receiving for keeping our people safe.
	To add to the current miseries, there are already stirrings among other die-hard unions. Many Underground stations are closed today and three London Underground lines are closed. We learn that Mr Bob Crow of the RMT has threatened to tell his members not to work, although the Health and Safety Executive has advised that those services can safely run. Fire-fighters at London Heathrow are also threatening action. It is clear that we live in dangerous times. There are threats from terrorists and people's lives are at stake from that as well as from the current action; indeed, perhaps from both.
	I have one or two questions for the Minister. First, I repeat the question I asked on the occasion of the previous Statement. Why have our soldiers not been trained to use the modern fire equipment? It is clear that the Green Goddesses are a far from satisfactory alternative, as witnessed by the difficulties experienced yesterday when one crew of soldiers could not get the fire engines to go at all and others could not access water to put out a fire. Why was so much cold water poured on the question of the soldiers being trained to use proper vehicles? It has been suggested that the equipment was so sophisticated it would take up to at least three months for intelligent resourceful soldiers to master the technology. Is the Minister aware that the Retained Firefighters Union said that it would take less than two weeks to make soldiers proficient in driving and operating those engines?
	Why have the reserve engines plus those that are used for training, which are available all over the country, not been released to the troops to at least supplement the Green Goddesses? Can the Minister also tell the House, having particular regard to the Prime Minister's speech about the threat from Al'Qaeda, whether the Government are considering the use of the Emergency Powers Act 1920, and if not, why not?
	Have the Government given consideration to implementing the powers contained in Section 2 of the Emergency Powers Act 1964, as did their predecessor Labour government in the firemen's strike in 1977–78? If not, why not? Have the Government sought the advice of the Attorney-General about taking action to seek injunctions under Section 240 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 and Section 1 of the Criminal Law Act to restrain any strikers or their leaders from committing criminal offences? If there is any possibility that the strikes can be stopped within current legislation, will the Government take it? The Minister said as an addition to the Statement of the Deputy Prime Minister that that is being considered, so perhaps he would update the House on that matter.
	I endorse the remarks of the Deputy Prime Minister about the appreciation we would wish to express to the 18,000 members of the Armed Forces and the police who are doing the job of the firemen. As the Minister said, they have been plagued by false alarms, adding to the burden of genuine emergencies and the knowledge that there have already been fire-related deaths.
	The Bain inquiry, set up late in the day, provided a framework for negotiation. The Fire Brigades Union will not get 40 per cent. Its leaders would be better off sitting down with the employers trying to thrash out an agreement rather than ignoring the Bain inquiry, which they have done so far, and now literally playing with fire.
	The Government have a major responsibility to protect the public and to ensure that those who are dealing with this current crisis are given the tools to do the job. As I said on the previous occasion, fire engines do not belong to the Fire Brigades Union; they belong to the people of this country. A way must be found to release those fire engines to the people doing the job of the firemen while the firemen dither on the side.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, we, too, thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. I could not help but note the tone of the Government, which is perhaps deliberately tough or perhaps reflects exasperation and weariness. We regard the strike as wrong and unreasonable. However, I wonder whether the Government are deliberately seeking to ratchet up the ante, which would be most unfortunate at this point.
	Can the Minister confirm whether the union and the employers met on Tuesday or yesterday? It appears from the Statement that they did not, but there are different stories about that. There seems little surprise that the strike went ahead last night. Both sides seem to have got themselves into a position from which it is difficult to move. There is no doubt that the work done by fire-fighters is held in high regard by the public and that individual fire-fighters are extremely unhappy about taking action. We recognise the attitude of those who attended fires last night when lives were at risk. We appreciate, too, the attitude of the retained fire-fighters.
	Has the Minister anything to say about the anecdotes concerning older fire-fighters being less supportive because they remember 1977, and about the unhappy tales of intimidation; for instance websites which publish the names of "scabs"? If that is so, we must all condemn it. We condemn, too, the hoax calls made and the deliberately started fires which, although small, had the potential to become substantial. We extend our sympathy to the family and friends of those who have died in fires since the start of the strike.
	Every death is a tragedy, not just those in major incidents. We regret that no undertaking has been forthcoming even to abide by the code to which the Minister referred. We would not want to put the FBU's assessment of public attitudes to the test of something less than a catastrophe.
	A modernised country, which the Government seek to achieve, expects a Fire Service modernised in every way: on the one hand with terms and conditions which put working practices on a par with those in other parts of the public sector, including such things as flexibility, an end to a ban on pre-arranged overtime and so forth—the list is long—and on the other legislation which recognises the reality of the service which is today undertaken by the fire brigade and an extension of the statutory duties which recognises the work it does, which is not just putting out fires—today people in different parts of the country will be experiencing the severe effects of flooding which could have been ameliorated had the strike not taken effect. That would mean a knock-on effect on investment in equipment, capital grants and so on. The Government need to play their part in that, which includes a major shift towards work on fire prevention. That is not just an add-on.
	All additional costs are borne by the taxpayer, but we believe that the Government should bear the cost above the 4 per cent originally offered, giving the employers the tools to do their part of the job.
	Perhaps the Minister can tell the House what the costs of using Green Goddesses are—the costs of maintaining them and training the military to use them? I put that in the context of what the noble Baroness has just said about access to equipment, that there must be a balance here. I do not think that we have seen the accounts—the debit and credit side—on this. What are the costs, too, of the police escorts and the effects on their diversion from normal policing, and the costs and effects of what one might loosely call "associated action"? In particular, I refer to the London Underground. It is quite unacceptable that whole sections of the Tube should be out of service because of driver action. Any driver who has real safety concerns because of the lack of fire-fighter cover should be talking to the management. The management will be advised by the Railway Inspectorate. It is there to judge what is and what is not safe for the travelling public. One cannot help but suspect that this is unofficial secondary action.
	We hope that the FBU will go back to the table and submit its alternative vision, to which the Minister has referred—an alternative vision which, I may say, has been due for a couple of decades—and that central government will state publicly that they will finance the I hope to be agreed reform and pay package.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I am grateful for the tenor of the comments and for the points raised by the two noble Baronesses. I shall not repeat them but shall do my best to answer their specific questions.
	The subject of vehicles being removed from the stations was raised before, and was certainly raised in the other place. We have made it abundantly clear that we are working on military advice in that respect. We did not want the strike to take place. Noble Lords must remember that so far negotiations have saved 10 days of strikes. We would have had 12 days by now. So we have saved 10 days, and indeed lives as a consequence. So the matter is not straightforward. We are reviewing the matter on a constant basis now that we have a 48-hour dispute.
	I do not have all the details, but I turn to the argument that we could do fire training in two weeks, and, specifically, who could drive the vehicles. I have no doubt that one could train to drive the vehicles in two weeks, but training to use the vehicles, which are mobile starship enterprises, I think will take a little longer than two weeks. Anyone who has been on a modern appliance will know that we are not talking about a Green Goddess plus. It may be that one could be trained to drive it in two weeks. All the evidence is that it takes much longer to make good use of the appliance and of the equipment.
	We are looking at the issue of reserve engines. This morning the Deputy Prime Minister said that there are about 100 that would be of use. The 18 at the Fire Service College were put at the disposal of the Armed Forces earlier today.
	The Emergency Powers Act 1964, the Trade Union Act 1992, all the other Acts of Parliament and issues in respect of the Attorney-General—and this is not a glib answer—are being reviewed. The strike has started and all previous advice is being revisited now that we are in the position of a 48-hour dispute. As I said at the end of the Statement in quoting the Deputy Prime Minister, if once the 48-hour strike is over, we face an eight-day strike the Government may have to review many of the issues which until now we have kept off the table.
	The noble Baroness was quite right, the fire-fighters will not get 40 per cent. That has been made abundantly clear. At the end of the day there will have to be a negotiated settlement of the dispute. But it will not be on a 40 per cent provision with no strings attached. That is absolutely certain.
	I do not accept the point that the Bain report was late in the day. From the chronology of what was said, Bain was set up when there was a complete breakdown. It would probably have been fruitless to set up Bain while negotiations were taking place.
	As to the question about whether there was a meeting this Tuesday, my information is that the National Joint Council met on 12th November. The Fire Brigades Union rejected the offer. It is reasonable for an ordinary person to assume that they were in the same room. I shall not say that; all I shall say is that my brief says that the National Joint Council met on 12th November and the Fire Brigades Union rejected the offer. That is the best information I can give in answer to the question.
	I do not know anything about the point about the websites and the older fire-fighters. It would be quite disreputable for people to be attacked on websites for doing what they would argue is a humanitarian job. Fire-fighters are humanitarian people.
	The number of hoax calls is quite horrendous. I have seen the figures on the news since the Deputy Prime Minister made his Statement. We get many hoax calls every day. It is par for the course, disreputable though it is. People who make them, rightly, will be severely treated.
	I shall not go into the issue of terms and conditions. This is not the place to try to negotiate a settlement.
	I do not have details of the costs of the Green Goddesses or their storage. There is certainly no asset value in anyone's books—that is for sure.
	I turn to the effect on the police. The strike is a little over 21-hours old. It will last for another 27 hours. I hope it will not be repeated. One cannot put a cost on the Armed Forces because the service personnel are there to start with. As to the London Underground, 19 out of 275 stations are closed. Seven per cent of those stations are closed on safety grounds. Other than that, there is no excuse, according to all the relevant statutory authorities, for any disruption to the London Transport infrastructure. If indeed there is disruption, then, yes, it would look like secondary action.

Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, can my noble friend say something more about hoax calls? They are regrettable at all times, but now that is particularly so. Under what Act is the Director of Public Prosecutions, or whichever the authority concerned is, taking steps to ensure that hoax calls can be abated as best they can? What are the sanctions currently available?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, the point about hoax callers is that one has to catch them. I understand—I repeat from the news and not from anything I know from the background—that one person was arrested in the northern part of the country early this morning. I do not know under which Act of Parliament, but hoax calls to fire brigades are definitely illegal actions. Whatever Act of Parliament it is, if people are caught we hope that the Crown Prosecution Service will arrange for their quick apprehension and prosecution, and that the courts will deal with the matter severely.

Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I hope that this is not a naive question. At the beginning of the Statement the Minister referred to the pay of the fire brigade being equivalent to that of teachers and nurses. But the difference surely is that teachers and nurses do not have to put their lives in danger as part of their work. Can the Minister say whether part of a fire-fighter's salary is a danger allowance and whether any allowance has been made in the offers made for a danger allowance to be paid as part of future pay?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I do not know the exact details. I gave the figures that would apply if the current offer was accepted—that is, 11 per cent over two years. In other words, this time next year the 7 per cent would have been paid. Those are the figures I read out. I then said that those figures compare very well with nurses, teachers and other public servants. The implication is that they are well ahead of nurses. They are well ahead of the Armed Forces, who are out on the streets at the moment, I might add. I cannot say, and I suspect that no one can, what element of the present Fire Service pay is related to—as the noble Baroness puts it—danger. I just made the point that those offer figures compare extremely well with those for other public sector workers.

Lord King of Bridgwater: My Lords, is it not important to recognise that, although the whole language in which we are conducting the debate concerns fire-fighters, the Bain inquiry makes clear that less than 10 per cent of their time is spent fire-fighting? Helping with traffic accidents and flooding forms an important part of their work. The impression has been given that it is now impossible to pump out anyone's house because the fire brigade is on strike. If ever there were an elementary piece of equipment that could be made available, it is a pump.
	No one can pretend that we could not see the strike coming. On the radio this morning, the Secretary of State for Defence seemed to be unaware that a substantial number of reserve fire engines could have been used for training. The Minister, who was, I am sure, faithfully following his brief, did not seem to have been advised of the training requirements or whether what the retained fire-fighters say is right. It worries me that that does not appear to have been properly examined to see whether people can be properly and quickly trained—and now—in those alternative vehicles, although we hope that we will not have the further eight-day strike.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, the short answer is that the period cited to train—two weeks—is incorrect. That is the advice that I have received; there is no argument about my brief. The figure is incorrect. It is one of those urban myths that get around that it takes only two weeks to train a fire-fighter. Fire-fighters will make it abundantly clear that it does not. I fully accept that it might take two weeks to train someone to drive a fire appliance. That is not the same as being trained to use it when a fire is reached.
	Like everyone else, I regret that pumps are unavailable for flooded homes at present. Because of the inclement weather, that is a problem. We regret that. That is a further reason why there should not have been a strike in the first place. The noble Lord is right: the success of fire-fighters is measured by the smaller amount of time that they spend fighting fires than they used to. Their success lies in all the work that they do on prevention during most of their shifts. People see them around and about, checking equipment, entering buildings, checking factories and offices. That is the measure of their success: prevention. Fighting fires is important, but a major part of the job is prevention.

Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, are there sufficient beds in the burns units of the National Health Service hospitals if more people are to be at risk from burns? Does the Minister agree that burns units throughout the country will need more resources and emergency help?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I cannot answer that question. If we have lots of extra fires, I suspect that the answer to the first question will be no. On the other hand, when there are emergencies, such as a major motorway accident, the NHS clears the decks. Systems are in place to make facilities available and to reorganise the health service. We will not have the nurses walking out, either.

Lord Blaker: My Lords, we all have confidence in the ability of the Armed Forces to operate the Green Goddesses, but would it not be possible to provide them on a permanent basis with vehicles and equipment that are less than 50 years out of date? Could not vehicles that have fallen out of use by professional firemen be acquired for that purpose, so that the Armed Forces could be trained on them for a proper period?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I assure noble Lords that all such sensible suggestions are being actively considered at present.

Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, can the Minister tell us the attitude of other major unions to the strike?

Lord Rooker: No, my Lords, because I have not been involved in negotiations; they have been conducted by my right honourable friends Nick Raynsford and the Deputy Prime Minister. I am not sure to which unions the noble Lord refers: whether the other fire unions or other unions in the Trades Union Congress. Most people are working normally; there is no excuse to do otherwise.

Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, further to the previous question, does my noble friend agree that it is not the policy of the trade union movement to stand by and watch the dispute escalate? The TUC must be given scope to use its good offices to facilitate a settlement, because there is great difficulty revisiting a formula that has been used unchanged for the whole of the Fire Service since 1978.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, with reference to the formula, the present FBU general secretary is on record as saying two years ago that the formula's use since 1978 had provided fire-fighters with a very good deal on wages. The idea that the issue has been festering away for a couple of decades is arrant nonsense, based on what he said. The formula has never been raised as a major issue. If it needs to be renegotiated, the Fire Brigades Union knows as well as I do that the offer to renegotiate the formula formed part of the offer made before it went on strike—in fact, before the Bain inquiry was set up.

Lord Hayhoe: My Lords, recruitment and retention tend to be the basic determinants when dealing with pay claims. On recruitment, is the statistic correct that I have heard on the radio and read in the press that there are 40 applicants for every job? On retention, what is the wastage—to use a rather emotive term—of people in the Fire Service who are moving out to get better pay elsewhere?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, unlike the position for nurses in the NHS, recruitment and retention is not a problem in the Fire Service.

Lord Tebbit: My Lords, has the Minister or his colleagues sought advice from the Law Officers on whether 1980s trade union legislation is still effective? That offered the possibility of taking action in tort against those who engaged in sympathetic action.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, that is a detailed question. The Law Officers, in their role as such rather than as straightforward members of the Government, were reviewing the legislation and state of play prior to the dispute. They are naturally revisiting the situation now that we have a strike on our hands—albeit a 48-hour strike, but with the threat of an eight day strike in a few days' time. That changes the situation.

Address in Reply to Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech

Debate resumed.

The Lord Bishop of Winchester: My Lords, I was glad to note at the end of the gracious Speech, and I welcome, the Government's renewed commitment,
	"to work for a more effective global effort to reduce poverty",
	their commitment to increase the aid budget and to the implementation of the Africa Action Plan in response to the New Partnership for Africa's Development. As a contribution to those commitments, I intend to speak about the Democratic Republic of Congo and to seek clarification of the Government's intentions in response to two recently published documents: the final report of the UN Panel of Experts on the Illegal Exploitation of Natural Resources and Other Forms of Wealth of the DRC; and Cursed by Riches: Who Benefits from Resource Exploitation in the DRC?, produced by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on the Great Lakes Region and Genocide Prevention. I need to declare an interest as a member of that all-party group, as bishop of the only diocese in the Church of England that has a partner relationship with the Anglican Church in the Congo and as patron of the Congo Church Association.
	In the last two of those capacities, I returned just under a week ago from spending two and a half weeks in the region at the invitation of the Congolese archbishop and in the company of Congolese. I spent two of those weeks in the eastern DRC. We visited three of the six Anglican dioceses, spending time in areas under the control of the Kinshasa Government and of three other groups. We were able to talk at length to all six Anglican bishops, with Roman Catholic and Protestant leaders and with the ecumenical group engaged, with great courage, in mediation and in the search for peace and reconciliation in and around Bukavu and Uvira. Many Church members and many clergy came to talk to us. Many had travelled long distances to do so on foot or on bicycles. They came to talk about the life of the Church and about the dire conditions in which they and many hundreds of thousands of others are living. In each area, I was also received by those responsible for government: the governor of Katanga—controlled by the Kinshasa Government—in Lubumbashi; the vice-governor—RCD-Goma—in Bukavu; and the administrator—UPC—in Aru.
	I should say, too, that, because the Bishop of Bukavu was invited to address the all-party parliamentary group in April, it was known in the Church that I was a member of your Lordships' House. It proved to be of considerable interest to the representatives of the Government and of the various governing groups, as well as to the Church—to which I was able everywhere primarily to bring the greetings of the Archbishop of Canterbury and to represent the Anglican communion—that a British parliamentarian was among them in such a way at such a critical, dangerous time for the people of the DRC. People of all sorts have a great deal that they want the UK Government to hear and to act upon. Your Lordships will also know that I am by no means the only occupant of these Benches to have had that experience while visiting, as a bishop, one or another of the world's most troubled and troubling areas—a fact of which members of the Joint Committee on the reform of the House should in my view take note.
	That very recent experience and the trust reposed in me by the many men and women who spoke to us in Lubumbashi, Bukavu and the hills above it, Goma and Aru—the English priest who accompanied me has served there, is well known in the Congolese Church and speaks Swahili, as well as much better French than I—requires me to take the opportunity presented by this debate. I also intend to seek an Unstarred Question debate, which will give time for Members of your Lordships' House to engage, from their own experience and knowledge, with the pressing questions presented by the DRC and the whole region, particularly to this country and to our European colleagues, with whom we share so much historic and, still more, contemporary responsibility for the countries concerned.
	Since my return, I have been able to read the two reports that I mentioned as I began to speak—that from the UN panel of experts and that from the all-party parliamentary group. The latter makes reference to the former and to its interim predecessors. I have been struck by how very closely both reports tallied with what we were consistently told by those who talked to us and also with the documents and reports, which were often still more shocking than what people said, that many were eager that we should read.
	The two reports collect a great deal of detailed information, and each makes a comprehensive series of recommendations. The report of the UN panel of experts makes recommendations primarily to the UN but also to a range of other governments and organisations, as appropriate. The report of the all-party group is addressed especially—but not only—to our Government. In commending the report of the panel of experts, the all-party group,
	"urge the UK government to make a statement in the House of Commons"—
	and in this House, too—
	"and ensure that the main findings are acted upon in the UN Security Council and the European Union".
	I hope that the Minister will be prepared to respond wholeheartedly to that request in her closing speech this evening, while also outlining the Government's thinking and intentions in response to the troubling—at times, profoundly shocking—information presented by both reports.
	For here is a country in which some two and a half million people have died as a result of war, chronic theft and pillage on the grandest scale and disorder in the past four years; in which the armed forces of as many as six neighbouring countries have operated in recent years; in which many hundreds of thousands of people live in the constant fear that a lack of order and security imposes upon them. For instance, knowledgeable local people said that as many as one third of the people of South Kivu—a big region—were taking to the bush and leaving their houses every night out of fear. Virtually all the proceeds of the Congo's enormously rich mineral resources continue to be stolen by its neighbours or to benefit a minute fraction only of its people. Over wide areas, the Churches are the only organisations left in being and the only providers—to an inadequate extent, in spite of heroic efforts and sacrifice—of schooling and medicine. Tribal and regional conflicts have been manipulated to near-genocidal proportions by neighbouring states or by sections of their armed forces in their own interests.
	In the DRC, there is a pathetically small and weakly composed United Nations force, with an inadequate mandate for a task that cries out for energetic attention. Many Congolese—if those who spoke to us are at all representative—hold the major European powers substantially responsible for the origins and the perpetuation of a good deal, at any rate, of their oppression. The UK has substantial interests and influence in Congo's two most significant neighbours.
	I could say much more, and I shall look for another appropriate occasion on which to do so. I look forward to the Minister's response at the end of the debate.

Lord Parekh: My Lords, in the first paragraph of the Queen's Speech, three main priorities are mentioned, including a constructive foreign policy. That is a most commendable goal, and I shall say something about it.
	In our increasingly interdependent world, the foreign policy of any nation—however great—cannot be concerned with narrow national interest alone. The way in which other societies live or conduct their affairs affects us deeply. Therefore, self-interest and principles of morality require that we should pursue our national interest consistently with the demands of global stability and justice. I am delighted that the Queen's Speech refers to our role in the European Union and our responsibility to combat terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. It also refers to our responsibility to tackle climate change and attain the UN millennium development goals. Not only are those and other goals consistent with the great traditions of the Labour Party, but they are consistent with—in fact, they are demanded by—what Britain stands for in the community of mankind.
	Thanks to the great history of this country, Britain's national identity is inherently three-dimensional. We are a European country and are a part of Europe not only geographically but culturally and politically. We share with other European countries certain basic values, sensibilities and profound historical experiences. We are also an Atlantic country, sharing much with the United States, including its language, political and legal institutions and history.
	Finally, we are a global country whose history was enacted in different and distant parts of the world, whose kith and kin are scattered all over the world, and whose trade, political and cultural ties encompass the globe.
	Therefore, Britain is at once European, Atlantic and global. It is uniquely equipped to act as a bridge and a mediator between Europe, the United States and the rest of the world. While loyally standing by the United States, Britain must have, therefore, both a right and a duty to alert the United States to the opinions, views and interests of both Europe and the world at large, and to exercise a restraining influence. That is what we did in relation to the events of September 11th and Iraq. While condemning those barbaric events, the Prime Minister rightly stressed the need to tackle the deeper roots of terrorism, including the Israeli/Palestinian conflict and global poverty and injustice.
	So far as Iraq is concerned our overall approach has shown considerable wisdom and maturity. We insisted, rightly, that our policy towards Iraq should be one of containment and deterrence; that is to say, exercising enough pressure to ensure Iraq's compliance with the United Nations' resolutions and relying on sanctions and watchfulness to ensure that Iraq did not develop weapons of mass destruction. Regime change in Iraq was not our business because it tended to escalate conflict, shift the goal post, personalise a highly intractable situation, and made it harder to achieve the basic goal of removing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.
	Furthermore, it is easier to disarm Iraq if we also follow the policy of gradually lifting sanctions in response to the progress made in the area of weapons inspection and destruction. That gives Saddam Hussein an incentive to disarm and, more importantly, it generates an internal pressure and momentum to disarm. We should not make the mistake of thinking that Saddam Hussein is mad, irrational, bent on self destruction or runs the country single-handed. He also has interests to accommodate, groups to assuage, and the policy of carrot and stick upon which we have long insisted allows us to generate the right kind of pressure on him.
	That line of thinking has not always aroused a positive response from the influential circles in the current US administration. They tend to take a simplistic, somewhat crude, militaristic and rather Manichaean view of the world. For those influential circles in the United States terrorism is the sole enemy and can be fought only by force. They also seem to think that September 11th gave the United States the opportunity, the right and, indeed, the God given duty, to set the world right once and for all and to reshape the world in its own image.
	In their simple minded view the conflict today is between good and evil—the US embodying the good and happily having the power to defeat evil. When politics is moralised in that way and becomes part of an eschatology it tends to forget its limits. It nurtures hubris and becomes a site for suicidal fantasies. Some of the advocates of that Manichaean view have produced bizarre plans published in the New York Times and the Washington Post—for example, such as creating a greater Israel, dismantling Iraq, giving Jordan to Palestinians, subduing first Iran and then China, and so forth.
	Happily, many Americans do not think like that at all. Sadly, some do, including the fundamentalist Christian Right, the Cold War hawks and those too traumatised by the events of September 11th to think clearly. While the international pressure, including our own, has so far managed to restrain that influence, they still continue to exercise considerable influence and set the agenda. They are unlikely to disappear, both because their ideological fervour keeps fuelling their propaganda and because the simplistic views continue to enjoy favour with the bewildered electorate.
	Therefore, we shall have to keep fighting them by aligning ourselves with the progressive forces in the United States and by offering a better alternative. I am delighted to see that our Government are doing so.
	It is in that context that I suggest we need to take a cool and detached view of Iraq. Although there is a lot of loose talk about war on Iraq, such a war would be most unwise. First, to much of the rest of the world our whole attitude to Iraq, rightly or wrongly, appears vindictive, partial and excessively punitive. It is the first and, as far as I know, the only country that the United Nations has singled out for disarmament for invading another, although such invasions have occurred in other cases as well. Therefore, going to war would alienate a large swathe of global opinion.
	Secondly, war would particularly alienate Muslims the world over. They are bound to see it as an attempt to keep them weak and powerless, to punish the misdeeds of one of them while conniving at the similar misdeeds of another, and an attempt on the part of the West to dominate their religion. It is that kind of widespread feeling among Muslim countries that has fed religious fundamentalism and led to Islamic governments in Turkey and Bahrain.
	Thirdly, any war on Iraq would destabilise Iraq and lead to revenge killings on a massive scale and even to a civil war. It could even lead to the fragmentation of the country into its three constituent provinces and cause massive upheaval. Fourthly, even if the war resulted in the removal of Saddam Hussein, it would not be the end of the problem. Democracy cannot be built in a day and Iraq would remain highly unstable for decades to come. Many innocent civilians would suffer in the war and could become desperately hostile to the West. It is not inconceivable that they might democratically elect a government committed to a programme of weapons of mass destruction. Indians, Israelis, Pakistanis and others, have democratically elected governments committed to weapons of mass destruction. What do we do then? Do we follow Henry Kissinger who, when Chile elected Salvador Allende, said:
	"Chile should not be allowed to go Marxist just because its people are irresponsible"
	Finally, war is said to be necessary to uphold the authority of the United Nations. That is a specious argument. The United Nation's authority has been challenged by many countries and it has done nothing. The United States itself has long wanted to go alone and still talks of doing so, and has hardly shown much respect for the authority of the United Nations. Besides, when UN resolutions are widely seen as products of arm twisting, bribes and intimidation, they do not carry moral authority.
	In short, we need to think carefully about the current international situation, especially Iraq. There is a commendable tendency in certain circles to think of Iraq in terms of the idea of a just war. Although that is an important concept, it is problematic. The idea of a just war is dated and needs to be revised in the light of modern situations. I can think of situations where the war is just and still ill advised. Instead, we should be asking whether a war is likely to create regional and global stability, likely to set good precedent, likely to address the causes of terrorism and injustice and whether it can sustain the spirit of international co-operation. By that criteria, war on Iraq is ill conceived. What we need instead is a realistic policy of carrot and stick with respect to Iraq and a wider and determined attempt to create a more democratic international order and global justice.

Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I am glad that I decided, regretfully, not to speak about Iraq and terrorism. The admirable speech made by the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay of Cartvale, said it all, much better than I could. I shall speak about Zimbabwe. I am sorry to disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, but it needs speaking about in the context of the Commonwealth; and the Commonwealth is one of the pillars of British policy.
	Like us, Zimbabwe is a member of the Commonwealth and we have been justly proud of the institution that we helped to create. However, from the moment that the Commonwealth managed to send only 42 observers to the vital election—it would have been only 30 but for a last-minute injection of more money, after an intervention in this House, by HMG—instead of the 100 observers who covered Zambia, Cameroon and Tanzania elections respectively, and from the moment that Abuja failed and then the Troika was flouted, the Zimbabweans should have understood, sadly, that membership of the Commonwealth may not be much more significant for them than belonging to a club on stamp collecting or folk dancing. The secretariat has never managed to persuade the African and Asian members that black Africans are being starved and tortured in Zimbabwe by a black ruler. Our Government have tried hard to do that, I know, and I make a distinction between them and the Commonwealth Secretariat. The secretariat has never managed to persuade them and they are content to leave the initiative for such action as is taken—such as the, I am sorry to say, ineffective financial sanctions which have only just come into force—to the EU.
	This country has, however, so far done its honourable best with others to provide aid and to exert what influence it can in Africa to contain Mugabe who has succeeded in building an iron circle around his country within which he is free to murder, rape and destroy, secure in the knowledge that the press and the media cannot report what is going on to the outside world.
	Would not your Lordships expect our country to strive to find ways to help those beleaguered people who speak our language, strive to preserve our legal system even under the direst threat, and are among the most skilled professional men and women in Africa? We have of course been glad to take their trained social workers and their nurses. But it seems that now that some of them urgently need to come to the free world, as the persecuted Jews did from Germany, the Home Secretary has decided that Zimbabweans, with immediate effect, will need a visa to enter the UK.
	Some tried to come in earlier this year. Some who had suffered torture were told by helpful officials that they could return quite safely through the simple expedient of moving to another part of the country. Between April and June this year, 1,345 persons applied for asylum and there have been 300 asylum claims at Gatwick alone in recent weeks. The Home Secretary says—and I understand his difficulty—that his visa programme is designed to deal with,
	"very significant abuse of our immigration controls by Zimbabwean nationals".
	The British High Commission states that an increasingly large number of "unfounded" asylum claims are being made. Large numbers of Zimbabweans are being refused entry and returned and, of course, have no access to legal advice before being put back on the aircraft. Of 2,115 asylum seekers from that country this year, only 115 were granted asylum.
	Those people come from a far more dangerous and life-threatening environment than any Afghan or Kosovan and they are Commonwealth citizens. Have they no special claim? Would not those who stay, and who all speak fluent English, benefit the economy at once? Has everyone forgotten the Ugandan Asians? Why can the Zimbabweans not, at the very least, benefit by something like the special regime—I believe it was a one-year initial stay in the UK, then subject to review—which the Kosovans enjoyed?
	Mugabe has done his best successfully to exclude the outside world so that no one shall know what he is doing to his people, and now we complete the process and close the ring by making it virtually impossible for Zimbabweans to come out and tell the world what is happening. For how is this visa process to work? Thought has been given to it. It was announced in Harare that no one need visit the British High Commission to apply—a proceeding which would have had obvious dangers for any applicant. Those wanting visas will apply to a branch of a commercial firm called Fed-Ex which has several branches in the country. This is presumably another private finance initiative. Fed-Ex will handle the applications and pass them on to the High Commission for processing. Fed-Ex will then issue the visas. If there is a query, the applicant will be invited to the High Commission for interview.
	The passport plus the visa is to be delivered, presumably by post, to the home of the successful applicant. How truly thoughtful this Rolls-Royce service is and how unlikely it is that, for instance, such people as the three brave men from Matebeleland who came out recently to tell us what is happening—and who have returned—will ever dare to use such a service. There will be ZANU-PF representatives or observers in every Fed-Ex office and it will be a crazy man indeed who expects to see his passport again before he is arrested.
	That is not all. The visa will cost each applicant £36 and in order for the Exchequer to receive its full pound of flesh the exchange rate used will not be the official rate of 88 Zimbabwe dollars to the pound but the black market rate of 2,000 Zimbabwe dollars to the pound. Passports, incidentally, can now also be obtained only through payment of the black market rate. Pensions, on the other hand, are paid out by the banks at the official rate only. How many teachers, lawyers, still less social or church workers or journalists, can afford 72,000 Zimbabwe dollars for a visa, or the equally obligatory 54,000 Zimbabwe dollars for a transit visa now required for travel on from the UK? The High Commissioner said in outlining the scheme that the move to visas was made necessary by the increasing number of Zimbabweans being turned away at British airports and he added what I found a very strange statement; that,
	"the final arbiter is the immigration officer so the visa is not a guarantee".
	It will be said that the cost of the visa is unlikely to be a problem for the would-be travellers who can find the money for the air fare. But the trip may represent the savings of the whole family or of a group desperate to send out a message to the free world. What price Commonwealth membership in all this? How can we live with ourselves after slamming the prison gates shut?
	It is hard to see how we can justify continuing with this policy while at the same time people are streaming in daily from the Continent who are neither under the same deadly threats of starvation and torture, nor able to offer the country the valuable human investment that most Zimbabwean citizens can offer; nor are they fellow members of the Commonwealth; they simply want to come here. Fair enough. The Zimbabweans, however, were they to come, would with very few exceptions be prompted to return to rebuild their own country as soon as there was any hope of them doing so. I believe that it is wrong that a decision of this political and humanitarian importance should have been taken purely in the context of the integrity of our borders and of the genuinely alarming uncontrolled influx of a wide range of nationalities, few of whom have the extensive traditional cultural and social affiliations with Britain which Zimbabweans enjoy. This is a political decision, not an administrative measure, and its significance is far-reaching not least because it raises the whole question of what the Commonwealth is for.
	This is not a purely domestic administrative problem. I do not see how we can expect serious attention from the Commonwealth if we are seen to give membership so little value in times of trouble. I gave the Minister, whom I greatly respect for all the work she has done in Africa, notice that I would raise this issue; and I look to the Government to reconsider such a short-sighted policy.

Lord Hannay of Chiswick: My Lords, there is no lack of crucially important foreign policy issues which are likely to come to a point of decision during the next Session of Parliament. Quite the contrary. The problem is to select among them those which will significantly affect this country. I will focus my comments on just four: Iraq, Arab-Israel, the convention on the future of Europe and, if time permits, Britain's membership of the euro.
	The unanimous Security Council resolution on disarming Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction and of the programmes designed to produce them was not just a triumph for our own and US diplomacy, although it was certainly that, but it was a triumph also for the United Nations and for the multilateral approach to handling a challenge like that posed by Saddam Hussein. This is not just a question of international law, important though the legal aspects are.
	My own view is that by his serial material breaches of the 1991 resolution requiring the abandonment of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and the programmes behind them, Saddam Hussein has in fact already put himself at risk to the use of force and that there will be even more of a case if he fails to comply fully and promptly with last week's resolution. But it is the politics of the situation which make that unanimous resolution so vital. If Saddam does again bring down on himself the use of force, it will be important that the widest possible coalition is mustered and that not a scintilla of ambiguity exists about who triggered off that action. That is the argument for putting our trust in Dr Blix and his inspectors and that is the argument for not listening to the denigrators of such international mechanisms.
	It is sometimes suggested—and it was so in this House last week, for example—that the new resolution, with its tight timetables and its clear and tough language is somehow unreasonably robust, even provocative. But there is surely a logical flaw in that argument because, if Saddam Hussein simply took the policy decision to abandon once and for all his weapons of mass destruction programmes, there would not be the slightest problem about fulfilling all the deadlines. After all, when South Africa decided to drop its nuclear weapons programme, it got a clean bill of health from the international inspectors in about one tenth of the time that it has taken Saddam Hussein not to get one. The problems arise because Saddam has not taken the decision to give up his weapons programme. Indeed, he has taken the opposite decision—to do everything he can to hang on to them.
	Let us hope that now, faced with the unanimity of the international community, he finally does take that decision, because that is the only way of avoiding the use of force. I really do hope that, differing though many people's views are on this matter, we can all join together to get that one simple message across. If we do not, if we continue to disagree among ourselves about what to do if he does not comply, and how to do it, and about whether or not we need another Security Council resolution to authorise any military action, then the risk is that Saddam will get the wrong message and will think that, yet again, he can wriggle out of his predicament with impunity.
	Elsewhere in the Middle East the options are less clear-cut and the chances of avoiding a continuing deterioration of the situation are even more problematic. With an Israeli general election now looming, the temptation to conclude that nothing much can be done for several months will be very strong. And yet to yield to that temptation will simply be to leave the agenda where it has already been for far too long, in the hands of the men of violence. So long as a complete cessation of violence is a prerequisite for the resumption of a meaningful and purposeful peace process, those same protagonists of a violent solution can dictate what happens. That is surely not the intention of those on either side who want a peaceful, negotiated outcome.
	Moreover, the absence of any progress back to the negotiating table is what, above all else, makes it so difficult to separate the moderates from the extremists in the Arab world, and yet that separation will have to take place if ever there is to be effective action taken against the extremists.
	Over the past few years the European Union has become an accepted, if not at all times an entirely welcome, player in the efforts to move towards a negotiated solution. It is now more than ever necessary that it plays an active and imaginative role. That cannot be to take sides. We may from time to time be compelled to criticise or to condemn certain actions which we consider to be disproportionate or unjustified or contrary to international law, but we must not become systematically engaged on one side or the other or we will lose all influence.
	We must work closely at every stage with the United States, because we know full well that without its active engagement and co-operation nothing will be achieved. But that does not mean that we should hold our tongue if we believe that the United States role is too passive or too reactive.
	So I would hope that the Government will ensure that Javier Solana, the High Representative of the EU, has all the resources that he needs to play an active role as a member of the quartet—the US, the European Union, Russia and the United Nations—and will continue, as the Prime Minister recently called for, to work for an early decision to resume peace negotiations, and that we should continue to feed in ideas and lend serious political support to that European effort.
	In the end, one has to recognise that, while it is unwise to establish any precise linkage between the Arab/Israel dispute and the task of getting Saddam Hussein to comply with the Security Council's unanimous will, there is an interrelationship between the two issues which cannot simply be wished away or made to disappear by denial. If we want the Arab countries to support any action which has to be taken against Iraq—and that will be a matter of the highest priority to us—we need to demonstrate that we take seriously their priority of priorities, which is to try to find a way out of the dead end in which the Middle East peace process is currently stuck.
	It may seem a long way from the Middle East to the Brussels debates in the convention on the future of Europe, which are due to conclude next summer, but it is perhaps not quite so far as one might think. After all, one of the main focuses of the convention's work is on how to make a reality out of the steps—the halting progress—that have been taken towards a common foreign and security policy.
	But the convention goes much wider than that. It represents a serious attempt to break out of the esoteric games of institutional tiddlywinks which have characterised the last three inter-governmental conferences—at Maastricht, at Amsterdam and at Nice—and to lay a solid, transparent and comprehensible basis for the future development of a European Union of 25 or more members.
	The Government are to be commended on the constructive input they have made so far to the convention, in contrast to past occasions when the British representative so often arrived at the conference table with an endless list of other people's ideas to which we were going to say no and a remarkably short list—if, indeed, such a list existed at all—of ideas which we wished to promote. We have on this occasion made a good number of constructive suggestions and made it clear that we wish to shape the debate, not by constant jabs on the brakes but by playing a full role. Not every idea we put forward will survive the triage of European negotiation; not every idea that others put forward will need to be shot down in flames. It seems to be understood better now that these discussions are a dialectical process, not a confrontation. No longer do British representatives recoil in horror if the word "constitution" is mentioned, and that is all to the good.
	Above all, this is not some titanic struggle between the two completely different approaches to the Union's development—between the Community method, also known as federalism, and the inter-governmental approach. If we view the negotiations in that light, we will end up isolated and empty handed.
	In some areas—justice and home affairs, immigration and asylum—it will make sense to extend the Community method. It will also make sense to strengthen the Commission—perhaps by reducing its numbers well below those that will provide one commissioner for every member state—and we should not shy away from more majority voting, so long as this is not extended to areas of fundamental national sensitivity such as the level of taxation.
	In other areas, the Community method does not make sense, either functionally or politically. That in my view is the case for common foreign and security policy, which bears no resemblance to legislation, nor to trade negotiations, where the Community method was designed to operate. Foreign and security policy is a mosaic of often procedural moves which may end up in the use of force and loss of life in the armed forces of the countries which decide to participate. I believe that the Commission will have to be told that in this area it has reached too far.
	Time does not permit me to say a word about the euro. I suppose that the Chinese reaction to all that we are discussing today would be to say that we live in interesting times. I fear they would be right. My closing plea to the Government would be to ensure that we in this House have plenty of opportunity to debate all these issues, and more, in the months ahead.

Lord Blaker: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I congratulate the Government on helping to persuade the American Administration to work through the United Nations on Iraq. I support also those who have spoken about the importance of the United States and the European Union working urgently to bring about progress on a Middle East settlement. I am glad that the quartet are working at the present time towards a two-state solution. I agree that it is important that they should not stop work simply because an election in Israel is pending at the end of January. This is an urgent matter.
	The United States Administration displays a quality which the Clinton administration did not possess. It understands the importance of the ancient Roman maxim that if you wish peace, prepare for war. Of course the United States Administration—the most powerful in the world—should use restraint, but it should also be ready, when appropriate, to use its strength and, if necessary, to take casualties. That is something that Clinton did not accept. If Saddam Hussein does co-operate with the inspectors—and that is still open to question—it will be because he understands President Bush's determination. That was Clinton's potential weakness which nearly brought about a failure in Kosovo. President Bush's understanding of this point is also relevant in that it has helped to produce a very big success for the United Nations. So, on Iraq, the Government deserve good marks.
	Like my noble friend Lady Park, I, too, will speak of Zimbabwe and Gibraltar, incurring, I know, the scorn of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, but confident of the support of the many millions of people in Zimbabwe who have been suffering from the reign of terror of Mr Mugabe and of 98.7 per cent of the population of Gibraltar.
	The Government's policies on Zimbabwe have been inadequate since the election in 2000, which was declared by every official group of international observers not to have been free and fair but to have been stolen by Mr Mugabe. That was the time when this Government should have taken the lead, in the United Nations and in the European Union. Britain has experience as the colonial power; it understands Zimbabwe. It was the author of the settlement of 1979–80.
	But, sadly, the Government did nothing for well over a year, in spite of being urged from these Benches to take steps that would be useful. They expressed great concern, intense concern and extreme concern—but the effect was to give Mr Mugabe the firm impression that he could get away with murder if that was the worst that would happen. That is what he has done—plus rape, torture and theft.
	I can only suppose that the reason for the Government's inaction was their fear of being accused by Mr Mugabe of neo-colonialism. But they were accused of that anyway, even if they were not on any possible grounds guilty of such a thing. I am told by people I know in Zimbabwe, black or white, that no one there believes such an accusation. So it is only recently—much too late—that action of any kind has been taken—a slap on the wrist by the Commonwealth; travel sanctions which do not apply to the spouses of Mr Mugabe or to his cronies; and the seizure of assets, which has yielded only half a million pounds according to the latest figures I have seen, at a time when Mr Mugabe and his cronies have their arms in the till right up to the elbow in the Congo in connection with diamonds and timber.
	It is extraordinary that no action has been taken by the G8. It had a wonderful opportunity last summer in Canada when considering NePAD and other African aid matters. I cannot understand why the matter of putting pressure on the other African countries to put pressure themselves on Zimbabwe was not raised by Her Majesty's Government. Mr Mbeki, the President of South Africa, has been an intense disappointment. He has taken no steps that I know of urgently to activate SADC to take action to show its displeasure.
	I wonder whether the Government are fully seized of the potential disaster that is occurring in southern Africa. The region is in almost a terminal state. Millions will be starving within a very short time. I believe that when historians write their account of these days in southern Africa they will hold the leaders of southern African countries to account for not taking steps to prevent President Mugabe from conducting the reign of terror in which he has been engaged. I do not believe that the present rulers of the developed countries will escape without criticism. I cannot, therefore, give the Government high marks over Zimbabwe.
	On Gibraltar, the activities of the Government have been even more unsatisfactory than they have been over Zimbabwe—although the issues there are not quite so terrible as those in southern Africa. My noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford referred to the report published last week by the Foreign Affairs Committee in another place. Perhaps I may quote one paragraph from the committee's conclusions:
	"We conclude that the Government was wrong to negotiate joint sovereignty, when it must have known that there was no prospect whatsoever that any agreement on the future of Gibraltar which included joint sovereignty could be made acceptable to the people of Gibraltar, and when the outcome is likely to be the worst of all worlds—the dashing of raised expectations in Spain, and a complete loss of trust in the British Government by the people of Gibraltar".
	I shall not read any more from the report. It is better that noble Lords should read it for themselves.
	I still do not understand what the Government were hoping to get from the Spaniards when they gave away the principle of shared sovereignty over Gibraltar. Why did the Government expect the Gibraltarians to vote for shared sovereignty after decades of harassment by the Spanish? Why did the Secretary of State and Peter Hain, the Minister for Europe in another place, alienate the Gibraltarians by dismissing in advance the results of any referendum held by Gibraltar, among other slighting remarks. Did not Mr Hain realise that to describe, in the House of Commons, an important piece of Gibraltar legislation as a "scam" was not likely to win friends and influence people in Gibraltar? Is not this the same Peter Hain who has recently been promoted to the Cabinet and who, alarmingly, is the Government's principal representative in the discussions on the Convention on Europe. That does not give me very much confidence. Did not the Government realise that giving away a part of sovereignty would weaken the position of any future United Kingdom government in any further negotiations? I believe that anyone assessing the Government's performance in the context of Gibraltar would say that the Government are obviously out of their depth and should drop the whole matter.

Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, we are all constrained by the guidance—somewhat unfamiliar—on speaking times, and I shall do my best to adhere to it. However, I had great sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Marlsford, this morning when he complained slightly—I believe genuinely—that this would stifle debate. Any form of limit or guidance discourages interventions and I believe that it stifles debate. That said, I shall try to be brief, but I hope that my remarks will not be diminished by their brevity.
	I want to talk about the Alexandria process, to which my noble friend the Minister made a glancing reference in her introductory remarks. An examination of many of the flash-points in the world at present shows that over the past few years there has been a breakdown in what is normally regarded as the political process. The reason seems fairly clear. So many of these flash-points are bedevilled by controversy and often enmity between different religions and—I hate to say this, looking at the phalanx of right reverend Prelates in front of me—between different sects of the same religion. If that is true—and I believe it to be true—it further seems equally clear that we need some mechanism that is by definition not political or official, but which commands respect and which can meet the animosity, real or imagined, between different faiths and lead to a process of de-fusing the religious electricity in these conflicts; and which in the end—although the end may be a long way away—can lead to a resumption of normal political dialogue.
	In short, if we can solve, or at least mitigate, by sensitive and sensible dialogue the apparent conflicts between different faiths, we may at least be able to lay the groundwork for the political resolution of conflicts where they have become infected by religious animosity.
	I do not mean to be starry-eyed about this. Sensitive and sensible dialogue is no longer possible with extremists who are determined to kill themselves as long as they can take with them what they regard as a suitable number of their enemies. Terror of that sort has to be fought without remorse. Force, with discretion, is also appropriate in cases such as that of Iraq. But there are other conflicts where dialogue is still possible even though the political process appears to have come to a dead end.
	To my mind, one of those—as we have been reminded by various speakers—is in the Middle East. I refer in particular to the antagonism between Israel and its neighbours. There is no doubt that that antagonism is fuelled by religious differences. After all, it takes only a very limited knowledge of history to understand the significance of Jerusalem as a holy city for three of the great religions of the world—Judaism, Islam and Christianity. The "political process", such as it is, or perhaps ever was, seems to have broken down. Now the question is: where do we go from here?
	It may surprise your Lordships to know that in the summer of 2001, a canon of Coventry Cathedral, Canon Andrew White, was approached by the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs. He was asked to see whether there was in his view any way of engaging the religious leaders of Israel and Palestine to help with what was then—and clearly still is—a faltering peace process. Out of acorns, as we know, great oaks may sometimes grow. The International Centre for Reconciliation based at Coventry Cathedral took up the challenge. After a series of secret meetings with Chairman Arafat, Prime Minister Sharon and leaders in both Egypt and Jordan, there was a meeting in Alexandria to discuss the matter. That meeting was chaired by the former Archbishop of Canterbury, now Lord Carey of Clifton. The result was the signature from representatives of all faiths in the region of what has now become known as the Alexandria declaration. This gave birth to what my noble friend referred to as the Alexandria process.
	The declaration contained a joint pledge—joint, my Lords—signed by Jewish, Muslim and Christian religious leaders of the region to commit themselves to condemn violence, to work for peace and to work for the implementation of the Mitchell and Tenet proposals. Not only that, but a specific and dedicated committee was set up to pursue those objectives. I have little hesitation in saying that that committee and its dedicated members are now perceived by many in that region and in the international community as one—and possibly the only one—of the viable bridges to span the religious and political divide between the Israeli and the Palestinian leaderships.
	The Alexandria declaration was much publicised in the region but not here. Therein lies my point. In our secular society, we have perhaps forgotten the power of faith. This can no longer be ignored. Throughout the post-imperial world—India, Pakistan, Nigeria, Indonesia the Philippines and even Russia—religious faith, as far back as history shows, either produces conflict, or, as St Paul wrote, leads in the end to reconciliation. In all this, my personal vote goes to St Paul rather than the warmongers. In the Coventry centre there is a nucleus for the slow but steady reconciliation of conflicts bedevilled by religious controversy. They deserve our support. I hope that our Government and your Lordships will give it.

Baroness Flather: My Lords, the big issues of the day have been well aired, but very little has been said about international development. I intend to address my remarks in that direction.
	By the time our grandchildren are our age, the world's population will have increased by 50 per cent. This is not a science-fiction scenario. At present, on last year's figures, there is a population increase of 77 million per year. The population of the 49 least developed countries will triple by 2050. Most of the growth will be accounted for by six countries: China, India, Nigeria, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Indonesia.
	How can international development keep pace with such a population increase? From time to time, these issues are addressed. The Cairo international conference on population and development took place in 1994 and was followed by the Beijing conference in 1995. A very clear link between gender equality and poverty eradication was established at those conferences. The reproductive health targets clearly included contraceptive and family-planning advice. I shall read some very important quotations from a speech made by the Secretary of State for International Development in June 1999:
	"The Cairo Programme of Action was a landmark . . . It gave us the right agenda for population . . . We paid particular attention to reproductive health."
	She continued:
	"We must do everything we can to reduce the rate at which unwanted pregnancy occurs."
	The Minister added that,
	"when a woman does decide that she does not wish to go through with an unwanted pregnancy, she needs services and care that are safe, accessible and respectful of her decision. She is the one best placed to make the moral decision this involves."
	She also stated:
	"And that includes having enough respect for the poor of the world—most of whom are women—to ensure that they are able to control their own fertility, have healthy wanted children and be able to live to see them grow up as educated and creative citizens".
	Nothing has changed on the ground, but the department's policy has certainly changed along with the Secretary of State's rhetoric.
	The only objective mentioned in the millennium development goals is the elimination of gender inequality in education. There is no longer any mention of family planning or the provision of advice on contraception. The Secretary of State now speaks of a new kind of aid that is not charity; it is part of the process of building modern, effective states. The NGOs are to be bypassed, and money is to be given directly to states. At least one state—Tanzania—is thinking of buying a presidential jet at £15 million and an air-traffic control system at £28 million. How much of British taxpayers' money will reach people at the very bottom, who need it most?
	Some of us have our origins in developing countries. We know how this money sticks to the hands through which it passes. How much of it reaches anywhere, even as part of infrastructure projects? It is extremely worrying to think that, in supporting these states, we will be expecting them to provide programmes that will not be monitored and cannot be evaluated. Who will carry out that monitoring? Who will go to any African and Asian state and ask to be shown what has been done with aid money? If we want to give those countries autonomy and to build them up, it is a complete contradiction to claim a right to look at what they are doing with aid money.
	The United States is a great friend and a great ally that we have supported in every respect. They have just withdrawn 34 million dollars from the UNFPA in China because they do not think that they should support anybody who provides abortions. Nobody in this Chamber or outside would say that abortion should be used as a means of family planning. However, the less provision there is for family planning services, the more likely it is that women will resort to abortion. That is incontrovertible logic. We should be saying loud and clear that family planning provision should be made so that women do not have to resort to abortion. There will be unwanted pregnancies and unwanted children. That could lead to more back street abortions, which have been with us since time immemorial, because services are not available.
	The difference between what I saw when I visited China 10 years ago and what I saw when I went back recently is unbelievable. The position of women has improved. The way people are, the way they live and the way they dress is totally different. There is more education and a greater availability of the things that we would like our children to have.
	Everything is not always bad. Although we would not like such a repressive regime, we hope that some of the other developing countries will think about this difficult issue. Eighty per cent of the world's population lives in developing countries. The vast majority of the women in those countries have nothing. They are virtual slaves. Who speaks for them? If our Secretary of State—a woman—does not speak for them but is happy to spend her time with the presidents of the African states, who will speak for the women? It is not the men who will change things. It is not in their interests. How can it be in their interests? Women do not want large families if they know how not to have them. Women want education for their children if they can get it. They want to improve their communities and their own conditions if they can. There are banks—a very few—that have 98 per cent return on the loan, and still it is not taken up.
	Women are the key to international development. It is time that I heard more about that from the Government. I want to hear more from our Secretary of State for International Development. She is a caring woman. I want to hear about what she is doing for these women who live in virtual slavery today with very little access to anything.

The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Williamson has kindly agreed to swap places with me in the debate. I have given notice to the Front Benches that I have to attend a family funeral. I regret that I shall have to miss the winding-up speeches.
	A year ago we were in the thick of an anti-terrorist campaign, then directed at the Taliban and the so-called Al'Qaeda remnants in Afghanistan. The agenda has since changed into something different—the US-led war against Iraq, now thankfully conducted through the United Nations, into which even some of Iraq's neighbours have been drawn somewhat reluctantly.
	The threat from Al'Qaeda has spread out from a well targeted enemy to an ill defined Islamist terrorist network worldwide. While Iraq has no confirmed links with Al'Qaeda, US foreign policy, as the noble Lord, Lord Parekh, cleverly described, is based on the crude concept of an axis of evil across the Middle East and Asia, ranged, presumably, against a trans-Atlantic axis of good. Even extra-judicial killing now seems to be regarded as a legitimate weapon of undeclared war, as we have seen recently in Yemen.
	I fear that through this alliance Britain has separated itself again from the Middle East and is losing some of the trust of those friends who have respected and absorbed our culture through education, diplomacy, business and social contact. I fear that this is at least partly a result of our paper policy on Israel-Palestine, which, as other noble Lords have said, is an urgent matter but never seems to get beyond the road map.
	There is a wider concern in the Middle East that, while on the one hand we stand for international values and human rights, on a political and military level we are prepared to be identified so closely with the moral high ground of the White House. I recognise the Prime Minister's restraint on the president, but in this semi-war we are plainly associated with a US-driven—and no longer an international or even NATO-led—campaign. What has happened to the broad coalition against terrorism that existed last year and to the painstaking efforts we were then making to keep our friends on side?
	The results of any war with Iraq must be measured against the damage it would do to our relations with the Middle East. While there may be no official love lost for Saddam at the Arab League, below the leadership level there is much private resentment of western attitudes and policies that are seen as interfering with Arab traditions and lead to open expressions of discontent with both the West and their own rulers. Short-term gain in Iraq, which will be hard enough, may be offset by an increased sense of humiliation among Arabs, who feel that the US in particular has walked over them enough. Such feelings help to fuel the anger that generates new cells of Al'Qaeda.
	In Saudi Arabia, for example, anti-US feeling has reached a new high with the Iraq resolution. Foreign Minister Saud-al-Faisal has strengthened his government's position. Bases in the Kingdom cannot now be used under any circumstances. Regardless of the bin Laden connection, which is officially outlawed, the Saudi authorities cannot risk any public demonstration of the ties with the US for fear of inflaming social unrest, already latent in a country where 80 per cent of the population are under 35 and unemployment is on the increase. The US failure to get behind Crown Prince Abdullah's peace plan and its undisguised protection of Israel are further causes of resentment.
	There is now a deep suspicion in the Middle East of what is seen as the hypocrisy of the West in its political campaign against Islam. Muslims reject the latest western attack on Islamic charities, for example. The Saudi Gazette of 29th October pointed to Sudan, where it said that Christian Churches and charities were,
	"used as a conduit for western foreign policy goals".
	Arab and Muslim charities, by contrast, were,
	"building bridges between Muslims in various countries".
	Unfortunately, in this vicious war of words the genuine humanitarian work going on may be ignored. Yet it is essential to continue such work through DfID and the NGOs. This is not the time, for example, to prune the budget of the British Council in the Middle East. Rather the contrary, when we consider its excellent work, which is the most defiant answer to Islamist propaganda. Education standards are low in the Middle East. The council's contribution in equipping young Arabs with skills for the job market cannot be over-estimated.
	This is also not the time to reduce the efforts of DfID and our aid workers in Afghanistan. Only a year on, there are real fears that ISAF, although now supplied by 22 nations, may not be able to expand its force and that the humanitarian budget is not being met. I have figures from Care International that may be of interest. Funding for Afghanistan is well below the levels for post-conflict reconstruction in the former Yugoslavia. Aid to Bosnia in 1996–99 amounted 326 dollars per head. Pledges to Afghanistan this year amounted to 75 dollars per head, with only 42 dollars per head projected over the next four years. President Karzai told the General Assembly in September that the financial pledges are still unfulfilled. The World Bank has stated that current pledges worth 5 billion dollars over five years need to be doubled, but most experts believe that that figure should be increased sixfold.
	It is true that the capacity of the Afghan institutions to absorb these sums is much less than in eastern Europe, but if the country's infrastructure—the roads, runways, schools, hospitals and government offices destroyed in the war—is not rebuilt in the next five years, there will be no incentive for the private sector to re-enter Afghanistan and reconstruction will not take place.
	To express it another way, out of all the funds spent in Afghanistan, the war and peacekeeping have absorbed 88 per cent, humanitarian work nine per cent, and reconstruction only three per cent. One year on, therefore, the Afghan people are wondering whether the war really achieved its objective of driving out the enemy and rebuilding the nation, when so many warlords and Al'Qaeda elements are still at large and the ruins of their country still lie around them.
	The ISAF is providing essential security in Kabul, soon to be under German/Dutch leadership, but its present level of manpower and training makes it unlikely that the present government will ever assume control of the whole country. During her visit last month, the International Development Secretary promised further UK help with the national army but other countries have been less forthcoming.
	Within the international aid community in Kabul, Afghan leaders are still largely bystanders, rather than participants. One neglected area of reconstruction has been support for the transitional government of Afghanistan. Only the transitional government can plan, co-ordinate and monitor the humanitarian, reconstruction and development effort. Yet of all the international funds pledged or delivered, only 90 million dollars has been given directly to the government. If Afghanistan is to develop a stable, functioning state—which, after all, was our original objective—the international community, including the UK, must help that state to gain greater self-determination.
	Muslims the world over, including those in our own community, applauded the overthrow of the Taliban. But they will now be looking to the West, not only for the funding that we are prepared to invest in countries like Afghanistan but, even more, for the building of trust that we should be prepared to place in Muslim societies, which are among our friends and allies around the world.

Lord Marlesford: My Lords, in some ways, I am probably reflecting the remarks of a number of other speakers in this debate when I say that I believe that the future of the United Nations is something that should be uppermost in our minds today. Far from perfect in its performance over the 57 years of its life—indeed, sometimes deeply disappointing—it is none the less the most precious possession of the world's peacemakers.
	In comparison with the principles of government of those nation states that aspire to democracy, the UN is far from a democratic organisation. Selected by a quirk of history, when in the Second World War good triumphed over evil, five nations—five only—have the supreme power and responsibility for exercising the ultimate assent or veto on Security Council resolutions, which have the force of international law. We are one of those nations. It is a privilege and a responsibility beyond measure. Within the constitution of the United Nations, it cannot be taken from us, or from any of the other four nations, without consent, because any proposal to change the rights of the Permanent Five would itself be subject to veto.
	The Security Council is potentially the fastest legislature in the world. It is the only non-military international superpower. Yet until 12th September it seemed as if the United States, out of frustration, anger and fear, might consign the UN to effective oblivion. I believe that a great tribute is due to our Prime Minister for his personal contribution in ensuring that that did not happen. It was a close-run thing.
	To contemplate a world in which only the military power of individual states determined the outcome of international disputes would be to gaze into an abyss of international anarchy. Although I defer to no one in my personal confidence in the benign motives of the United States, we now live in a world where even the greatest superpower is unable, on its own, to defend itself against the evil force of terrorism; and the past century has taught us that possession of the greatest military power can easily go with the greatest of evil intent.
	Whether or not the world should accept that despotic rulers have the right to abuse, exploit, starve, torture or murder the citizens of their own states is a much harder question to answer than whether they should be allowed to invade other states. It is not morally harder; but it is harder in terms of the practical politics of the world. The moral answer is clearly that such domestic behaviour of despotic rulers is no more acceptable than aggression against other states. Once that is accepted, practical action can follow. It will not be practicable in every case to take UN-based action. But it will be so in some cases. To take action in one instance but not in another does not, in my view—here I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Parekh—imply double standards. Indeed, it reflects the deterrent effect of international law; and deterrence is an important role for any system of law.
	The UN action that followed Saddam's August 1990 invasion of Kuwait was an important precedent for the passing of Security Council Resolution 1441 against Iraq last week. One of the most significant differences between then and now has been the growth of international terrorism using the resources of states. This has blurred the distinction between internal and external misbehaviour. That is why military enforcement in the event of non-compliance with SCR 1441, leading as it surely would to regime change in Iraq, will be both expedient and morally justified. Provided that it is with the authority of the Security Council, it would be both right and appropriate for Britain to take part in it.
	However, I must refer to the serious doubts expressed by my noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford as regards our technical capability to do so. I shall focus only on one of the examples that he gave; namely, that of a communications system to replace the Clansman system for our land-based forces. The noble Baroness, Lady Symons, assured us this morning that there will be a new communications system. Of course there will be; but Bowman, the replacement for Clansman, will certainly not be available for any spring 2003 Gulf campaign.
	Provision of the new "personal role radios", to which the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, referred on 7th November (at col. 925 of the Official Report) is in no way the answer. It is a very short-range radio, which is excellent for its purpose; namely, use at platoon or company level. We really must not commit our forces to battle equipped with Clansman. It is insecure both with regard to the interception of messages, because the manual cypher system it uses is not practical in today's high-speed warfare, and because it lacks the frequency-hopping facility of Bowman, which inhibits enemy direction-finding location methods. This could cause serious casualties among our forces.
	Therefore, I ask the Government, as I did during our emergency debate on 24th September—repetition does not matter if the request is worth making in the first instance, and if nothing appears to have happened—to use the coming weeks to re-equip those of our fighting vehicles that would be used in any military operations in the Gulf with the current American communications system. A suggestion has been made that action against Saddam would be a distraction from the wider war against terrorism. I believe that they are two sides of the same coin. They can, and must, be fought together.
	New and deadly techniques for fighting terrorism are evolving. We saw one example last week in Yemen, when the Americans were able to use a remote missile from an unmanned aircraft to destroy a car full of Al'Qaeda terrorists. Here in Britain, however, we have to make much greater use of some of the simplest security arrangements. I believe that we now urgently need to introduce national identity cards incorporating the latest biometric devices. I ask the Minister to tell us where the Government are on this long-running process.
	Furthermore, we really must improve at once the passport control at all points of entry into the United Kingdom. Many other countries have already done so, making travel much more hazardous for terrorists. I end with a recent personal example. Last month, I flew into London's City Airport from Belgium. Arrivals were directed into the usual two queues: EU and non-EU passport holders. Let us remember that any passenger can decide which queue to join. There was no immigration officer at all at the end of the EU line, and thus absolutely no inspection. That is not good enough.

Lord Desai: My Lords, in the short time available, I should like to speak briefly on the subjects of foreign affairs and international development.
	On foreign affairs, I take up a theme dealt with by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, and the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire. We are at a crucial stage in international affairs because America—the only remaining superpower at the end of the 20th century, and a superpower because of its strong economy and the sums it spends on defence—has been shaken. America feels vulnerable and frightened. It is a rare situation for a superpower to feel frightened. Unless we understand why Americans think as they do, we are very likely to misinterpret their behaviour as sheer arrogance of the old sort. We should realise that 11th September 2001 made America feel vulnerable for the first time. Americans literally feel that they are in a continual worldwide war against terrorism.
	It is no good saying that we Europeans have known terrorism all our lives; the terrorism we have known has been specifically focused on "national liberation", be it in Ireland, the Basque country or Catalonia. The new type of terrorism is diffuse and global. It has no particular territorial ambition, but is simply, for various reasons, directed against Americans. Americans are therefore asking themselves whether the multilateral institutions that they established at the end of the Second World War, such as the United Nations, are as useful as they had wished.
	Many current American publications which I could cite—especially a very large book by Professor Philip Bobbitt—argue that there is a totally new configuration in international relations. They argue that America should ask itself whether a totally new world order would not be more useful in fighting this diffuse type of war, as against the United Nations model which was useful in fighting other types of war.
	It is therefore important that we have maintained America's commitment to the United Nations process. I join many others in paying tribute to my right honourable friend the Prime Minister for securing that outcome. It is also very important that—when the inspectors find something, or when Saddam Hussein makes a mistake and throws them out, both of which are very likely outcomes—the matter of resuming hostilities is dealt with in the United Nations. At the same time, however, we must understand that the United Nations has historically not been a very effective instrument when it comes to taking urgent action. It is a very good talking shop, but not so good at taking urgent action. After all, we went into Kosovo without United Nations approval because, had we waited, Milosevic would have killed many more people.
	It is therefore important that we talk to our other allies and to the other permanent members of the Security Council and persuade them that, when push comes to shove, people should not make other excuses and prolong this agony. The United Nations will face its biggest challenge if Saddam Hussein is found in multiple material breach and we fail to do anything about it. If that happens, the United Nations might be considered useless.
	It is no good avoiding the challenge. I believe that Americans feel that this action is part of their right of self-defence. It may be true, as my noble friend Lord Brennan said, that various tricky legal issues will arise, but we must understand how the American mind works. We should not take it for granted that they are acting from perverse delight or because George W. Bush's father was president during the Gulf War. We should reject such trivial nonsense. For Americans, the world has changed. Unless we understand that, empathise with their understanding of the world, and try to reason with them to persuade them again to accept some form of multilateralism—a more efficient form of multilateralism; the old form of multilateralism will not do—I think that the United Nations will break down. Many American publications make that point, which I think we should take seriously.
	As that is all the time I have to deal with foreign affairs, I turn to international development. We are facing enormous famines in Ethiopia and southern Africa. We are yet again revisiting the desperate situation regarding development in Africa. We often ask ourselves why Africa is such a bad case in terms of development. However, I recall that, in the 1960s, we were asking the same question about Asia. There was a famine in China, in 1962; two harvest failures in India, in 1965 and 1966; a massacre in Indonesia; and perpetual war in Indochina, as it was then called. I also remember that, in the 1960s, people said that the world would be all right if India and China could feed themselves. In those days, Africa was all right and China was the problem.
	Today, the situation is reversed. One of the major tasks for those who run NePAD is to understand how Asia reversed its situation and to determine whether lessons learned there can be applied to Africa. Asia and Africa have many similarities in terms of colonial history, the multi-ethnic and multiracial character of their regimes and the behaviour of their politicians.
	Asia offers two remarkable lessons. The first is that it managed to implement an agricultural revolution—the "green revolution"—to transform its food-growing capacity. Although that was accomplished with technology pioneered by the Rockefeller Foundation, it was achieved also because local politicians invested in rural areas to allow the provision of water and the purchase of fertilisers and training for farmers. Agricultural development is without question the major factor in removing Africa from its recurring cycles of famine. The major factor is not land reform; Ethiopia is currently suffering from its disastrous land reform. Africa has to alter its food growing technology, not its technology for commercial crops such as coffee and cocoa in which it has a good record.
	We must also try to understand how the Asian regimes, some of which were very corrupt, delivered goods and services to their population. There is a connection between the Asian ruling elites and the Asian people which has not been reproducible in Africa. The African governing elite is far more alienated from the mass population than is the case in Asia. I do not know why that is the case. We must investigate that major question. If we could understand how to make the political process work in Africa as it has in Asia—I refer to democracy in Asia—we would understand how to bring Africa out of its current crisis. I hope that my noble friend will comment on what the Government are doing about that.

Lord Selsdon: My Lords, I have often wondered why foreign affairs and defence are given such priority in our debates on the gracious Speech when for many years governments have rather sought to withdraw from the international world, perhaps post-Suez.
	But I wonder even more today, when we have accepted that international events are of greater importance than ever, that we should be the only House debating this issue. I learnt today that Members of the other place consider it insufficiently important to devote attention to. They have therefore left themselves entirely in the hands of the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, which I think is a wise decision.
	I wonder what it would have been like in the past when we were a great nation and one had to report on events of the year. With a certain whiff of schizophrenia I imagine myself in the other place standing on the Front Bench, or sitting on it, or standing before the Box. I put on my glasses, take up a piece of paper prepared by my officials and, in stentorian tones, I would advise the other place of the following.
	In the Balkans riots between Croats and Serbians led to martial law in the Croatian capital, Agram. In the Gulf we sent a British warship to patrol and to keep the peace following the quarrel between the ruler of Kuwait and Bin Rashid who had proclaimed himself King of Arabia. In Iran, Major Showers captured the fort of Mobiz and broke up a terrorist band under Muhammed Ali, who was killed. In Baluchistan, Major MacMahon took a force to sort out the Perso/Afghan border dispute. In Afghanistan the new ruler, Habibullah, released 8,000 prisoners on the occasion of his coronation and then tried to introduce compulsory military service. The natives felt that they would rather join the British native levy.
	In the North-West Frontier, General Egerton took four columns of 700 men into Mashud territory to combat terrorist raids and thefts of arms by the Afridis. In Somaliland the Mad Mullah, Abdullah Mohamed, resumed his raids on the British Protectorate, and Colonel Swaine and his native levies restored stability but with heavy losses of men and camels. In Kano, Nigeria, diplomatic efforts failed and the Emir assembled 1,000 mounted men and fortified the city. Colonel Moreland, with 1,200 men of the West Africa frontier force, restored order. There were no problems in Lagos or Sierra Leone.
	In South America revolutions in Venezuela and Colombia continued and British trading vessels were seized. Lord Lansdowne, with German support, blockaded the coast and seized Venezuelan warships. Customary political unrest continued in Uruguay. In the Caribbean there were major eruptions of volcanoes in Martinique and St Vincent that required humanitarian support. In South Africa, Kitchener confirmed the end of the Boer war and a peace-keeping contingent of Commonwealth troops left Australia for the Cape. In London there was speculation that the bank rate might fall from 3.5 to 3 per cent.
	I refer to the year 1902, 100 years ago. Dare I use the French language for a moment and say, Plus ca change? We were active around the world at that time for reasons of trade, our requirements for raw materials and for economic benefit. In those days the British Army consisted of 615,000 men, apart from native levies. There were 96,000 in the British Navy, but there was, of course, none in the RAF. Is the situation today as serious or as difficult as it was then? Today we have only 215,000 people in the British Army. One wonders, therefore, what we shall be able to do if the activities that we hear are likely to take place—I refer also to those that have taken place—arise. Will we have enough troops?
	As my noble friend on the Front Bench is wearing with pride his brigade tie, I recount an event that took place a couple of weeks ago when I was asked by the Grenadier Guards to address their association down in Cheltenham—a pretty blue territory. I thought that there would be a couple of battalions. When I was in the navy a battalion was meant to comprise 1,000 men and one chap called the colonel. There were 520 men—only one battalion. So these days a regiment is only half a battalion. The Grenadier Guards has probably as great a name as any regiment. Its men had just been off on exercise in a flat-bottomed boat to Norway. There they trained in the mountains in preparation for an attack on Afghanistan, Baluchistan or somewhere else mountainous.
	When we discussed the firemen's strike I suddenly realised that there are six men in the front and six in the back of a Green Goddess and therefore we need 20 regiments to operate them. Is that right? How many regiments do we need to be able to take action around the world if we are required to do so? Has not the moment arisen when men are more important than machines? To keep the Grenadiers alive for a year is the price of one unequipped Apache helicopter. I refer to machines that are kept in sheds, as we do not have the ability to train people to operate them to full capacity. Why is that?
	The Grenadiers told me that these days the average length of service is three years and therefore one-third of the personnel leave every year. That seems to contradict the idea that men need to be highly trained, with five or six years' service, before they can fight. Perhaps that was the case when they had to participate in sophisticated activities in major conflicts or potential major conflicts. I could raise a regiment with a capitation cost of £40,000 per man. When there were five battalions, the fifth battalion was always voluntary or was raised by someone who sat on what is known as the Barons' Bench. If we are to perform our role in the world in future, we shall need more men.
	I turn to a separate point. Your Lordships will be aware that in the First World War some 4 million Commonwealth troops fought alongside us and 5.5 million in the Second World War. Your Lordships will know that today the total of the American armed forces stands at about 1.3 million. NATO has 1.7 million and the Commonwealth has 2.8 million. I ask the noble Baroness whether, as regards the current resolution of the United Nations, consultation has taken place with the Commonwealth? Surely when 40 countries of the UN are members of the Commonwealth we might be able to demonstrate that we, the British, with 40 historic allies, blood brothers, or whatever we may call them, have great political clout as well as having the armed forces of men on our side. I am not suggesting that we should raise native levies but, if we think of the alternative, we know that the machinery does not work. We know that in general the sort of equipment that is available is unsuitable for walking around in the mountains with packs on one's back. We need men and we need a stronger army.
	As, formerly, the most junior naval officer, always temporary—rather like in your Lordships' House—and as some form of chinless wonder standing on the Back Benches, I say that we should look for greater recruitment. That is all I have to say. I never thought that I would stand here supporting wholeheartedly the Grenadier Guards.

Baroness Cox: My Lords, in the debate on the gracious Speech in 1999 I first voiced my concerns over the dangers of Islamist terrorism. Since then the horrors of September 11th, the attacks on ships, the nightmare in Bali, the tragedy in Moscow, attacks on German tourists in Tunisia and French workers in Pakistan are a few examples that have hit the headlines. But before I proceed I emphasise this caveat. Of course, the vast majority of the world's Muslim population of over 1 billion are peaceable, law-abiding people, often renowned for hospitality, generosity and graciousness. It is therefore very important to make a distinction between them and the minority Islamist groups that interpret the Koran to justify jihad in its most militant form, resulting in military conflict or terrorism. Many such militant Islamist movements in the West and elsewhere are associated with the ultra-Salafi movement.
	As terrorism increases, it is increasingly important to do everything possible to prevent the spread of Islamophobia and to extend the hand of friendship to moderate Muslims and to moderate Islamic Governments, especially those who are trying to curb the spread of militant Islamism. It is therefore my privilege to be involved in setting up, for example, the Islamic-Christian Council for Reconstruction and Reconciliation, with a primary focus on Indonesia.
	However, it is equally important that the threats posed by militant Islamists are taken very seriously by non-Muslims and moderate Muslims. Otherwise, there is a risk that Islamist activities will generate fear, which blurs distinctions and may promote a backlash against all Muslims. Perhaps the quintessence of the quandary facing the West is that while the vast majority of Muslims are of course not terrorists but peaceable, the vast majority of terrorists in the world today are Islamists.
	However, before addressing the problems, it is important to highlight successes, such as the outcomes of the operations by the coalition forces in Afghanistan, to which the Minister referred in her speech. They include the end of the brutal Taliban rule; the scattering of Al'Qaeda and the closure of its terrorist training camps; the vast improvements in the situation for women, with opportunities for education and work; and the establishment of a relatively stable government.
	However, success breeds new problems. The dismantling of Al'Qaeda networks in Afghanistan may be succeeded by their strategic dispersal. It is claimed there are now Al'Qaeda cells in more than 50 countries, bank accounts in many more and links with established terrorist training camps in countries such as Iraq, Sudan and Indonesia.
	While the dreadful events on September 11th last year highlighted the danger of Islamist terrorism to westerners, they reflected a reality that had already caused suffering on a huge scale in many other parts of the world. So, when President Bush and our Prime Minister described the war on terrorism as the first war of the new century, many people were surprised, including those who had already seen large numbers of their compatriots killed by Islamist terrorism. A few examples must suffice. First, there is the National Islamic Front regime in Sudan, which took power in 1989 by military force, supported by Iran, Iraq, Yemen and Libya. Its jihad has been responsible for 2 million dead and 5 million displaced from war-related causes. Secondly, in Indonesia, Jemaah Islamiyah and the ostensibly disbanded Laskar Jihad, with Al'Qaeda links, have been responsible not only for the Bali bombing but also for the deaths of thousands in Maluku and Sulawesi. The nominal disbanding of Laskar Jihad, which was warmly welcomed by the noble Baroness the Minister in your Lordships' House on 28th October, can in reality be seen only as a facade and a redeployment. More than 1,000 remain in Ambon and the rest have redeployed mainly to Java and Papua.
	Thirdly, the second Chechen war, contrary to most media representations, has long ceased to be a simple war of independence; it is an Islamist-resourced war against Russia and an attempt to obtain the oil resources of the Caspian Sea for militant Islamism. That has been well documented. It is disturbingly ironic that the jihad against Russia for Chechnya was announced in London in Friends Meeting House—of all places—in 1999, at a very well attended meeting at which highly provocative and militant tirades urged men to fight in Chechnya, women to encourage them and everyone to give money to the jihad. My final example is that of the bitter conflict in the predominantly Armenian enclave of Nagorno Karabakh, which began with Azerbaijan's self-avowed policy of ethnic cleansing. In a war of apparently impossible odds, the 150,000-strong—or weak—Armenian population defended themselves against 7 million-strong Azerbaijan, who were assisted by Mujaheddin warriors from Afghanistan as well as Islamist fighters from several Arab countries.
	Moving towards home, in Britain, there is concern that well-known Islamist militants have been recruiting and training new supporters, apparently with impunity. Although there have been some arrests, prominent leaders such as Abu Hamza al-Masri and Sheikh Omar Bakri Mohammed are still at large. That is in spite of their involvement in subversive activities. For example, they were portrayed on British television in August 1999 teaching followers to disregard the laws of this land and to undertake terrorist activities, such as developing weapons to bring down civilian aircraft here in Britain. Abu Hamza was also closely involved with the British-trained Islamist terrorists arrested in Yemen. There is no evidence that those Islamist leaders have changed their ideology or their practices. So I ask the Minister: is there is any information on how many recruits have been trained in these terrorist training schools in the United Kingdom? How many have been sent abroad to fight in jihads such as that in Chechnya, and are there any policies to curtail such terrorist training schemes in this country?
	Another concern involves the financial penetration by militant Islamists of key institutions. Last year, I referred to the case of Salah Idris, the owner of a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan and therefore presumably with good relations with the Islamist NIF regime. He then owned 75 per cent of shares in the firm IES Digital Systems, which was responsible for security surveillance here in the Palace of Westminster, in British Airways and in other significant institutions. He also had a 20 per cent shareholding in Protec, a security organisation with security projects in Ministry of Defence institutions and nuclear installations at Dounreay and Sellafield. I asked the Minister whether the anti-terrorism legislation prevents the financial penetration of key institutions. To date, I have received no reply. That appears to be an important issue and I hope that the noble Baroness will reply, if not at the end of the debate then at least in writing and fairly soon.
	Finally, there is concern about the apparent freedom of militant Islamist organisations to operate in the United Kingdom, even when they are forbidden abroad. I refer, for example, to Hizb-Ut-Tahrir. That Islamic liberation party has been described by the reputable academic Ahmed Rashid as one of the key Islamist organisations threatening to destabilise the central Asian Islamic republics as well as Pakistan. It is a proscribed organisation in Egypt and three British members are currently detained in Cairo. It is currently active in Indonesia and is distributing leaflets and conducting poster campaigns here in the United Kingdom. Its website gives details of regular meetings in this country. I ask the noble Baroness: is that acceptable?
	To conclude, this inevitably partial overview of aspects of Islamist terrorism reminds us that those of us who have the privilege of living in freedom have a responsibility to use our freedoms to help those who are denied them. We also have a duty to preserve for future generations the democratic freedoms and values that we have inherited at the cost of the lives of many people. We must therefore recognise the threats to our society and be prepared to respond robustly and in ways that are of course compatible with our democratic values if we are not going to allow those who would use the freedoms they enjoy here to destroy those freedoms and the democracy that enshrines them.

The Lord Bishop of Oxford: My Lords, it was good that there were significant passages in the gracious Speech on poverty reduction, economic development and the current round of trade negotiations. It was particularly encouraging that the Minister laid such emphasis on this aspect of the Government's policy. We know that they treat these issues with great seriousness. I thank the Minister for her tribute to the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Carey of Clifton, for his role in the Alexandria process, which has been significant.
	I want to comment briefly on debt. Despite the real achievements of the Jubilee campaign and the various HIPC initiatives, we must continue to keep that aspect of economic development in the foreground. A recent report, The Unbreakable Link: Debt Relief and the Millennium Development Goals, concluded:
	"If poor country governments are to have sufficient resources to meet the MDGs"—
	that is, the millennium development goals, which are mentioned in the gracious Speech—
	"as well as to meet other essential expenditure needs such as law and order and the civil service, the 42 HIPC countries as a whole cannot afford to make any debt service payments. In fact . . . even if all the debts of these 42 countries are cancelled, the HIPCs will need an additional 16.5 billion US dollars in aid each year if there is to be any hope of meeting the goals".
	Therefore, we must not cease to keep up the pressure for significant debt reduction.
	Secondly, in his very powerful speech resulting from his recent visit to the Congo, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester drew attention to the scramble for resources in that country as a significant factor in the continuing fighting and the role of neighbouring countries in that scramble for resources. Does the Minister agree that G8 and African leaders should concur that all states should provide transparent means to track revenues from natural resource extraction and that they should develop mandatory regulatory requirements through national security regulators? Does she also agree that, as an immediate action, G8 must publicly encourage the voluntary disclosure by multinational resource companies of all payments to governments involved in conflict in Africa, specifically in relation to companies operating in the Democratic Republic of Congo, the Sudan and Angola?
	Thirdly, I want to concentrate on the question of trade, first, in relation to fair access of goods from developing countries to western markets. Northern governments should provide quota and tariff-free access to their markets for all imports from low-income countries in Africa, including agricultural products, textiles and garments. They should also tackle the problem of tariff escalation on processed goods.
	But perhaps even more serious and pressing than the question of access to our markets by goods from developing countries is the question of fair trade in those countries themselves. That does not occur at present because of the extraordinary level of subsidies paid for goods exported to those countries. Not long ago, a country such as Ghana—to take one example—had its own local tomato industry. Its tomato crops are now rotting away. Why? Because people buy canned Italian tomatoes, which are very heavily subsidised by the European Union.
	Again, to take one specific example, in the 1960s Ghana had a flourishing rice crop. It is now half what it was then. Forty per cent of that country's rice is imported from the United States of America, which subsidises it at 5 dollars a hundredweight. The level of subsidy which developed countries pay to their farmers is running at extraordinary levels: £230 billion a year. More than the GDP of the whole African continent goes on those subsidies.
	To bring the matter home—I believe that the Minister referred to this briefly in her opening statement—every cow in the European Union is subsidised at the rate of 2 dollars 20 cents a day. That is more than the income of half the population of the world. Those figures are extraordinary. Clearly, in the long run, the developing world must do something about eliminating the subsidies so that trade can be truly fair and so that markets in the developing world can be true markets where goods from developing countries compete on a level playing field with goods from the developed world.
	I should be particularly interested to know what the Minister says might happen in the medium term and short term in relation to those problems. The aid agencies are concerned not only about the long term but about what might be done in the medium term to try to alleviate the plight of farmers in the developing world. With regard to the short term, they are asking that, when economic policies are drawn up in relation to agricultural policies, what is called a "development box" should be built into the policies specifically to protect small farmers in the developing world at this time of transition.
	In addition, more widely in relation to exports and imports generally, the aid agencies are very concerned about what appears under the heading of "special and differential treatment". A great deal of frustration is felt by representatives from the developing world that the current round of trade negotiations does not take into account the needs of the developing world. I particularly want to ask the Minister, first, whether she is aware of the frustration of the developing countries at the current round of trade negotiations and, secondly, whether she can hold out any hope for them in the future.
	Therefore, although we must not forget the issue of debt, I believe that we must always bear in mind the relationship between conflict and poverty and that we should try to tackle that. I know that the Government also have serious concerns about that issue. The question of fair trade, both in the long and medium terms, must be a pressing issue for anyone who is concerned about the economic development of the poorest countries in the world.

Baroness Dunn: My Lords, your Lordships' preoccupation in this debate with the threat from war and terrorism is well justified. But this House may wish to be reminded that it is now just over five years since sovereignty over Hong Kong was transferred by Britain to China. It is, I suggest, both timely and appropriate to take stock of that historic decision, much debated in this House.
	First, I declare my interest both as an executive director of John Swire & Sons and as the chairman of the Hong Kong Association.
	Your Lordships will recall that the basis of Hong Kong's handover was the Sino-British joint declaration, which this House commended for its concept of "one country, two systems". Noble Lords will know that the political transfer has gone extraordinarily well. As the Foreign Secretary wrote in the last six-monthly report to Parliament, Hong Kong,
	"has been free to exercise its autonomy in all matters envisaged under the Joint Declaration".
	That does not mean that all has been smooth sailing. Far from it. Hong Kong has had more than its fair share of problems. Ironically, the challenge came not from any political interference from China but from external shocks to its open economy. Since the handover Hong Kong has had to cope with not one but two severe economic downturns. The Asian financial crisis hit Thailand the very day after the handover in Hong Kong. The timing could not have been worse. It gave Hong Kong's transition no chance of a smooth passage or a soft landing.
	The dramatic fall in property prices and the resultant negative equity had a serious impact on public sentiment. So has the rise in unemployment to levels not seen before in modern Hong Kong. The pain and anxiety to a community accustomed to prosperity have been immense. It is not surprising, therefore, that the present mood of its people is subdued and anxious and that its government do not do well in public opinion polls.
	I believe that not enough recognition has been given to the decisive and sympathetic way in which Hong Kong's Government since 1997 have faced and tackled a whole series of unprecedented problems. They have had to think laterally and to learn quickly on their feet. For example, the 1998 foray into a stock market threatened with meltdown took courage as well as nerve. It was much criticised at the time but has been subsequently vindicated with praise. Nor have the Government allowed pressing problems to detract them from longer-term strategy.
	In order to strengthen Hong Kong's position as an international financial centre they have merged the stock and futures markets; developed e-commerce; further strengthened its regulatory framework; reformed the public service; and privatised public undertakings, including its efficient underground railway. A Disneyland is under construction and a cyber port and science park have come on stream. There are initiatives in train to improve education, infrastructure and the environment. All of those measures are aimed at ensuring that Hong Kong is well placed to take advantage of the global economic recovery that will inevitably come.
	Last July, as he commenced his second term in office, Hong Kong's Chief Executive introduced a "principal officials accountability system". That is a bit of a mouthful, but we might think of it as a kind of ministerial system. Criticism of that initiative has been both premature and ill-informed. Its purpose is threefold: to forge a real link between the executive and the legislature; to respond to the community's wish to see principal officials take public responsibility for their portfolios and, perhaps most important of all, to preserve the political neutrality of Hong Kong's highly motivated and competent civil service.
	I shall not take up your Lordships' time by going back into history; suffice it to say that Hong Kong inherited a frankly unworkable political structure when it began life as a special administrative region of China. That undoubtedly led to tensions and frustrations between executive and legislature. Something had to be done to avoid constant deadlock. It will take time for the new system to bed down and bear fruit, but it would be unhelpful to condemn it at this very early stage. It is an important step along the path set by Hong Kong's constitution, the Basic Law.
	The Basic Law provides for universal suffrage as the ultimate aim and for a review in 2007 when Hong Kong people should reach consensus on the next step forward in democratic evolution.
	Hong Kong's problems have inevitably created doubts and raised questions about its future. Some even ask whether Hong Kong is in terminal decline.
	Hong Kong's fundamental strengths have always been its geographic location, its people's enterprise and work ethic, its competent and non-corrupt administration, its trusted and deeply rooted legal system, its free press, its multicultural and tolerant society and the fact that it has one of the freest economies in the world. None—I repeat, none—of these key features has been eroded by the challenges of the past five years.
	Furthermore, Hong Kong's status as a special administrative region in China, the world's fastest growing economy, gives it unique opportunities. China's spectacular development will be well known to your Lordships. And Hong Kong is on its doorstep.
	Although the imminent changes among China's political leaders are important and significant, that is unlikely to have any effect on policy directions, other than perhaps in style and priorities. The reforms of the past two decades have seen the emergence in China of a vast and thriving private sector. There can be no turning back.
	Some people question Hong Kong's continued value to China and its ability to compete with Shanghai. I firmly believe that Hong Kong's contributions to China are irreplaceable, at least in the foreseeable future. No other city on the mainland or indeed in Asia can match Hong Kong's rule of law, its pool of managers and its cultural commitment to free trade, low tax and a level playing field. These have taken generations to take root.
	There is still a tendency for commentators to view Hong Kong, post-handover, through a prism of extremes: that it would either stay frozen in time or slide off the map. Neither scenario was ever realistic. Always more likely was what has actually happened. Hong Kong has continued to evolve socially, politically and economically. It will come through wiser, leaner and more competitive. The people of Hong Kong are known and admired for their energy, dynamism and sheer guts in making the best of life, even in the worst of times.
	I am sure that Members of this House will share my hope that they will regain that confidence and fighting spirit. I am sure that we all wish them well.

Lord Williamson of Horton: My Lords, I should like to focus my short intervention on certain issues of foreign policy of importance to the United Kingdom and their links with the European Union's common foreign and security policy. Despite my background I have often thought that blessed is the country which has no foreign policy. But that is not to be, and your Lordships have been allocated a whole day to talk about it, with numerous references in the gracious Speech. I am glad that we have come to Hong Kong at some point in the debate.
	I start decisively from the position that whether we examine these questions on a bilateral basis or in the context of the common foreign and security policy, we need to look strictly to our national advantage and not to more theoretical arguments about greater European integration. I expect that the Convention on the Future of Europe will come forward with some important conclusions on other issues, such as the competencies and the role of national parliaments, but I do not expect any great change in the areas of foreign affairs and defence. We shall continue to have the fundamental distinction—not always fully comprehended in the United Kingdom—between, on the one hand, community affairs such as the single market where the role of the Community institutions is very important and, on the other hand, European Union affairs of an intergovernmental nature under pillar 2—common foreign and security policy—where the role of member states is dominant.
	The United Kingdom, being sovereign in matters of foreign affairs and security, can develop its policy bilaterally, in particular with the United States or in other international fora, such as the United Nations, as is the case now with Iraq. Our attention is heavily concentrated, and rightly so, in this debate on the suppression of terrorism and on weapons of mass destruction. Those are the Government's priorities, and the nation supports them.
	But I want to consider also the medium-term and other geo-political developments—in particular those in which we should maximise the combined impact of our bilateral strength and the European Union's common foreign policy. In particular, while the world may be going backwards in the Middle East, it is clearly going forward in central and eastern European and in Russia. I want to look not only to the Middle East but also to the East.
	The Government have done well continually to stress the United Kingdom's support for enlargement of the European Union by including the applicant countries of central and eastern Europe, Cyprus and Malta, which have now almost completed negotiation of their accession. But I still wonder whether among British people generally there is full understanding of the scale and nature of that change. There is perhaps too much of a tendency to stress difficulties, such as the consequences for our agricultural policy or the regional fund, rather than the opportunities opened up by the imminent arrival in the European Union market of a further 108 million people—I do not count the population of Turkey, which is not quite at that stage—with diverse skills and needs. Yes, they may be consumers of British services if we are ready to serve them, but they are also potential partners in investment for business and commerce.
	First, in economic terms, will the new member states be the east European tigers? Perhaps not all full-grown tigers, but good growth in their economies, prosperity and purchasing power is highly likely as the effect of the European Union's single market works through—as we know from experience in Spain, Portugal and Greece. Secondly, there will be greater people-to-people contact through increased tourism and cultural and other contacts. Thirdly, there will be a new input into European Union policy from the new member states, which have much of benefit to offer us. I am confident that the general direction and good sense of their thinking on European affairs will have much in common with what we believe about the future of a union of sovereign states. Fourthly, they will bring added knowledge and historical perspective to our relations with the states of the former Soviet Union.
	So let us adjust—and not only in words—to a European Union of almost 500 million people, stronger but also closer to our ideas and objectives. European Union enlargement on that scale is a major geo-political change, but it is being accompanied by great change in our next big neighbour: Russia. I welcome President Putin's state visit next summer. His decision to work so actively with the United States and other friendly nations in the action against terrorism, including the provision of intelligence information, after the 11th September attacks is not only of ground-breaking importance for security but represents a much wider reorientation of Russian policy.
	The changes in Russia itself and in its external policy are much underestimated. President Putin's recent speeches have been direct about what needs to be done for the economy and in Russia's openness towards the European Union. Much has been done. Last year, the Russian economy grew by more than 5 per cent; there was a 50 billion dollar trade surplus, a record budget surplus and debt repayments; capital flight declined; and Russia had the best-performing world stock market. Of course, the latter item was not difficult to achieve, but the others were. Legislation on the tax system, business environment and pensions reform was passed by the Duma last year.
	In external affairs, Russia is now participating in the Russia/NATO Council, the quartet on the Israel/Palestinian conflict and, despite its first hesitations, it supported the US/UK resolution on Iraq. I have not heard this mentioned so far in the debate, but this week it agreed to a settlement of the difficult issue of the conditions of passage of people from the rest of Russia to the geographically separate Russian territory of Kaliningrad after the accession of neighbouring states to the European Union. That had to be settled before enlargement could go ahead. We all know that the history of enclaves in that part of the world is not a happy one. We should not underrate the difficulty for Russia and should be grateful for the settlement. It is a far cry from past attitudes.
	The European Union has a so-called common strategy for relations with Russia. But is it really adapted to the changed situation? Does it not need more vision, a higher priority and a greater effort to identify common ground? The European Union is by far Russia's largest trading partner, but I am not sure whether the growing importance of Russia as a principal energy supplier has yet sunk in. Russia has the world's largest gas reserves, and it already supplies 25 per cent of Europe's gas. It is the second-biggest exporter of oil in the world, and it supplies 15 per cent of Europe's oil. If there are further serious disturbances in the Middle East, which may even be judged as probable, the importance of Russia as a major and dependable supplier of oil and gas to western Europe will be great. That element of stability in the energy market could prove important to our economies in Europe if there is talk of crises affecting supplies from the Middle East in the months ahead. I would not be surprised by that.
	Britain is vulnerable in terms of both security and economic loss to the ripples from the Middle East. We need to maximise common ground with countries that have moved closer to our position in recent months. The Select Committee on the European Union is looking at relations between the European Union and Russia. I will not prejudge that report. Perhaps we might even debate it here at some time—and not on a Friday. But I stress my own view that greater attention to, updating and widening of our relations with the countries of central and eastern Europe, including Russia, is very much in our interest. It would increase our solidarity and protect our economy if, as I fear, the ripples from the Middle East continue to spread out for some years to come.

Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to learn more than was disclosed in the gracious Speech about the Government's intention to develop a "constructive" foreign policy. We have moved on from an "ethical" foreign policy. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Symons of Vernham Dean, who opened with a thorough coverage of many issues. I wish the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, the best of good luck in the formidable task of winding up such a wide-ranging debate.
	I acknowledge the fact that the star issues of the debate are, probably, the United Nations-Iraq situation, the Middle East in general and the enlargement of the European Union. Much has been said on those topics. If I have time, I shall add some comments. Nevertheless, it will come as no surprise to your Lordships that I intend to focus my remarks on Latin America and the overseas territories.
	I was delighted that the noble Baroness, Lady Symons of Vernham Dean, referred to the importance of trade with Latin America. I recognise that the Government are making efforts to ensure that, as a trading nation, we do not miss out on the opportunities. Those opportunities exist in spite of the current world recession, a fact that applies also to Hong Kong, as emphasised by the noble Baroness, Lady Dunn. This week, we saw the visit of President Fox of Mexico. Mexico is the world's ninth largest economy, and the United Kingdom is the second largest investor in Mexico, after the United States. The president addressed the City and investors on trade possibilities. In his Canning lecture, he addressed the political issues in Mexico, where there is a great strengthening of democracy, as emphasised by his accession to the presidency. The president also opened the splendid Aztec exhibition at the Royal Academy, which emphasises our cultural links not only with Mexico but with the whole of Latin America.
	Since the European Union and Mexico entered into a bilateral trade agreement two years ago, there has been an increase of 20 per cent in trade between the European Community and Mexico. The advantage is on the side of the Europeans, however, and the increase in exports from Mexico amounts, I think, to only 4 per cent. Nevertheless, it is progress and movement in the right direction.
	This week has also seen the visit of President Cardoso, the outgoing President of Brazil. Brazil has the largest economy of Latin America and is a major economy in world terms. It is a target country for the Foreign Office, the British Council and other government agencies and I trust that it will continue to be so. I believe that there is a possible visit from the President of Peru before the end of the year, but there are other areas where we have strong links, and needs for links, with Latin America. The gracious Speech refers to a Bill to be introduced in relation to the control of drug trafficking. Clearly, in countries such as Colombia and Bolivia, who are major producers, we need, as a consumer country, to work together in order to improve that horrible situation. Therefore, I believe that there is plenty of contact and that there are plenty of open doors. I hope and feel sure that the Government will continue to push them.
	In addition to improving our bilateral trade links and combating drug trafficking and such like, I urge the Government to take advantage of our special relationship with so many Latin American countries. They should take a leading role in working together in the various international fora to ensure that those special historical connections which bind us—in particular with Argentina, Venezuela and Chile—really count, whether in connection with peacekeeping activities within the United Nations or issues of world trade within the WTO process.
	In that respect the references that have been made to reform of the common agricultural policy are both essential and relevant. In all the bilateral trade agreements between the European Union and Mexico, between the European Union and Chile which has just been concluded, and the ongoing negotiations between the European Union and the countries of Mercosur—Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay and Paraguay—the issue of the common agricultural policy and the subsidies which we give to agricultural produce is a major barrier in ensuring that those countries are able to increase their own opportunities for helping themselves.
	I believe that all those issues are not just a government responsibility, there is an important parliamentary role. If we believe—as we do—that democracy is an essential element for future progress in the world, we should be encouraging and supporting the efforts that many of the countries of Latin America are making in that respect and acknowledging that in spite of the major economic problems that exist that democracy has survived everywhere. In that respect I would like to refer to the work of the Inter-Parliamentary Union—the IPU. I was fortunate to visit Venezuela earlier this year with a small group of British parliamentarians. As a continuation of the contacts that we made there the vice president of the Venezuelan parliamentary assembly will be visiting this Parliament next week.
	I know that the international IPU meeting which will take place in Chile next year embraces the whole of the world. Nevertheless, there will be a strong focus on the countries and democracies of Latin America. I hope that anyone concerned in those activities will play a leading role. Therefore, I continue to believe that for us Latin America is an important target area. I am happy that I have had this opportunity to make reference to it again today.
	I turn briefly to the overseas territories. After last year's Act, the most outstanding general issue is the need to look at and do something about tertiary education for the people from the small overseas territories who, if they do not come here for such education, may have to look to the United States or North America. There is a particular issue that has already been addressed by my noble friend Lord Howell and my noble and learned friend Lord Howe. It is the issue of Gibraltar.
	They said much that needed to be said and the Minister in opening referred to the need for continuing dialogue. However, I was disappointed because there was no reference in the gracious Speech to a Bill to allow and enable the people of Gibraltar to vote in the next European elections. That had been promised and the United Kingdom must do so in order to comply with a ruling of the European Court of Human Rights. I hope that in winding up the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, will be able to reassure me on that.
	In conclusion, I want to comment briefly on the important and imminent issue of Iraq. If we as a country have been urging the United Nations to support a resolution requiring Iraq to disclose its arsenal of weapons of mass destruction, I wonder whether there is any chance that that requirement could become a general rule. In these days of openness, transparency and accountability, is there not an opportunity for the British Government to spearhead a move, perhaps as part of their constructive foreign policy, to require all countries manufacturing weapons of mass destruction to disclose the contents of their arsenals? I believe that we should be the first to give a good example.

Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, I want to talk about matters which, regrettably, were not in the Queen's Speech. It has become clear to me that President Bush is determined to invade Iraq with a view to effecting a regime change, come what may, and without going back to the United Nations for a fresh resolution. Even in the unlikely event that Saddam Hussein does not infringe in any way the conditions laid down regarding the freedom of the inspectors to do their job, I suspect that the United States will invade Iraq. Since the recent elections in the United States, neither the House of Representatives nor the Senate will be likely to restrain the President. He has a great deal of power and he is very conscious of the wish of many of his people for revenge for September 11th 2001.
	The situation has been compared by some people to the situation in 1939 with Nazi Germany. The new Archbishop of Canterbury refuted that argument in an article in the Telegraph about 10 days ago which some of your Lordships may have read. Our treaty obligations were triggered in 1939 when Hitler invaded Poland. That was why war was declared. And modern warfare is so terrible that we should be more wary than ever of starting one.
	We, the NATO countries, sat opposite the Soviet Union for about 40 years, staring at them across the Iron Curtain. For most of that time, they had a nuclear capability and the means to deliver it. All right, they did not have chemical and biological capabilities as far as I know, but we sat there on our hands. And it paid off. We did not go to war and at the end of the day there was a regime change from inside and the Iron Curtain melted without a shot being fired. Apart from the fact that we know that Iraq has biological and chemical capabilities as well, is the situation really all that different? Of course, the Soviet Union was a world power of enormous strength, against which NATO would have been pushed to win a war, whereas Iraq is not in that league at all. Nevertheless, if Iraq has weapons of mass destruction—which we believe it has—we need to consider whether attacking Iraq is not one of the surest ways to make it use them.
	Shakespeare said:
	"There is a tide in the affairs of men
	Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune". That tide was at the flood in 1991 and was not taken. I shall not apportion blame, but I do not think that it was ours. I do not believe that that tide has flowed again. We would be wiser to pause and wait to see what fortune, in the shape of a possible change of regime in Iraq, might bring to pass.
	I have grave doubts, too, about the logistic practicality of waging a war against Iraq without the assistance of most of its neighbours. I also have grave doubts, fuelled by the list read out in his speech by the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, about the state of our military equipment. I cannot think it right that our troops should be committed to assisting the United States forces until that sorry state of affairs is remedied.
	In short, I have grave misgivings about the wisdom of attacking Iraq and about our involvement in that attack. I believe that those misgivings are shared by many throughout the country.
	I wish now to say something about the fishing industry. I know that this issue should probably be discussed in the trade and industry debate but, as I am not allowed to speak twice and what I have to say touches on foreign affairs, I shall speak to it now.
	Last week, four Members of this House—the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, and myself—had the opportunity to visit Billingsgate fish market. There we learnt much of interest. We saw samples of immature fish—nay, baby fish—landed by, mainly, Spanish fishing boats. They were tiny, the size of salmon parr; codfish the size of salmon parr. To ask our fishermen and our fish processing industry to face grave difficulties—and possibly ruin—in the name of conservation while permitting the Spanish and, to a lesser extent, the French to hoover up baby fish off the floor of the sea is not acceptable. I ask the Government to press Herr Fischler to put a stop to this wicked practice before any more restrictions are put on our fishermen.
	Finally, I shall talk rubbish. Your Lordships may think that I have already been doing so, but I mean rubbish. We are threatened by our local authorities, which are running out of land-fill sites in which to dispose of our rubbish, with being fined for every extra bag of rubbish we put out to be collected, over and above a limit to be decided by them. We are being accused of wastefulness.
	But we cannot help the amount of rubbish we have to dispose of. It comes into our houses whether we like it or not—and I, for one, do not, any more than I expect many of your Lordships do. Every newspaper or magazine we open shoots a cascade of unwanted junk mail onto the floor for us to pick up. Junk mail arrives with every post; junk faxes arrive daily, using our paper for which we have paid. Ringing the helpline which is supposed to stop them seldom works.
	Everything that we buy is so packaged that it is often almost impossible to gain access to it. Much of this packaging is made of plastic and so is not bio-degradable. Our goody-goody, patronising, local authority nannies tell us to re-use it or "compost" it. How are you to re-use, for example, a plastic pack which contained batteries? How are you to "compost" it when you live in a flat in a city? How are you to compost a very large part of our unwanted rubbish anyway?
	Will the Government consider whether there is anything they can do about this nuisance? Legislation to ban junk mail would be more help to most people in this country than a great deal of what is proposed in the Queen's Speech and do far more for conservation.

Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: My Lords, the subject of foreign affairs has, as always, been mentioned in the gracious Speech and always evokes a wide-ranging response in this House. I want to focus attention on an immediate and urgent matter—the Cyprus problem. The United Nations Secretary-General has just presented a new blueprint for its resolution to the two peoples of the island.
	That may or may not herald progress, but it is unrealistic for the Secretary-General to expect a considered response to the complex 172-page document in the seven days he has stipulated. The Turkish Cypriot president is convalescing after heart surgery, the new Turkish Government has not yet been formed and the document contains many serious problems not necessarily acceptable to either side. None the less, they have agreed to consider it.
	However, to resolve these issues before the European Union's Copenhagen summit on 12th December is impossible. Is it right that the Turkish Cypriots should be pressurised into the most important decision that they will ever make, merely to meet an artificial timetable set by others? They have not been involved in the unilateral EU membership application because they could not, and should not, be expected to accept the Greek Cypriot administration as the government of Cyprus.
	It would be a grave injustice and a monstrous political misjudgment to admit Cyprus without the consent of both its peoples. A shotgun marriage in Cyprus would be a disaster. The EU must not be blackmailed, and Her Majesty's Government must realise that Greek threats to veto enlargement can provoke counter-threats. The Greeks claim to want a just and lasting settlement in Cyprus.
	We cannot afford another Foreign Office triumph like the one that delivered the people of Zimbabwe into the hands of thugs and turned that food exporting country into one where the Matabele are being systematically starved to the point of extermination. Let us have no more diplomacy like that. Let us ensure that human rights do not take second place to bureaucratic timetables.
	For 38 years, Turkish Cypriots have been excluded from the normal channels of international communication. They have been denied the right to trade freely, to access international capital markets and to have direct flights to and from their own airport. These embargoes have no authority under Chapter 7 of the United Nations Charter and the United Kingdom should have nothing further to do with them.
	This is not a mere technical issue, as the Government sought to maintain in the debate in this House on 6th November. It all flows from the treatment by the United Kingdom of the Greek Cypriots as the government of Cyprus and its persuasion of others at the United Nations to do the same.
	In 1964, the British Government accepted (but has since forgotten) that "Cyprus Government" could mean only a government who act with the concurrence of both Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots. The UN Secretary-General currently acknowledges that sovereignty,
	"emanates equally from both peoples. One of them cannot claim sovereignty over the other".
	There has been no concurrence since 1963 and there is no "doctrine of necessity" which could excuse Greek Cypriot behaviour.
	If we have forgotten what happened in Cyprus between 1963 and 1974 we cannot appreciate the fears that the Turkish Cypriots have for their future or understand their attitude to any agreement with the Greek Cypriots without real, practical and effective safeguards.
	Let me remind your Lordships of what the American Under-Secretary of State, George Ball, wrote in his memoirs—how, in the 1960s, the Greek Cypriot leader's
	"central interest was to block off Turkish intervention so that he and his Greek Cypriots could go on massacring Turkish Cypriots".
	He went on to say:
	"obviously we would never permit that".
	But the fact is that neither the United States nor the United Kingdom or the United Nations took effective action to bring the slaughter of Turkish Cypriots to an end until Turkey intervened 11 years later. Even in 1974, Britain, the guarantor, did not change its position, and the German newspaper Die Zeit wrote on 30th August 1974:
	"the massacre of Turkish Cypriots in Paphos and Famagusta is the proof of how justified Turkey was to intervene".
	It must be remembered that all this happened despite solemn international guarantees and despite United Nations troops actually being in Cyprus.
	The Turkish Cypriot state is not a breakaway state, because the Republic of Cyprus as legally constituted in 1960 had ceased to exist by 1964 and had been replaced by a Greek Cypriot state calling itself the Republic of Cyprus. Yet in 1983, when the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus was declared, the United Nations Security Council, which is not a court, with the approval of the United Kingdom, labelled the declaration "legally invalid". It called upon states not to recognise the Turkish Cypriot state, even though Turkish Cypriots had done no wrong.
	It is the view of the distinguished international jurist Eli Lauterpacht QC that:
	"If the Security Council had assessed the situation as a whole, it could not possibly have concluded that the conduct of Turkish Cypriots violated the controlling legal instruments while the conduct of the Greek Cypriots did not. Nor could it have reached any other conclusion than that the action of the Greek Cypriots fully justified the conduct of the Turkish Cypriots".
	I raise this contentious issue because I want my nation to act honourably in respect of Cyprus in the future. It shames me to have to acknowledge that it has failed to do so in the past. It is in all our interests that the two peoples of Cyprus settle their differences. We must understand why that has not yet happened if the present initiative is to have any hope of succeeding.
	Debates on Cyprus in our Parliament, especially in another place, and in the United States Congress do injustice to the principle that both sides should be given a fair hearing. That imbalance is also particularly noticeable in the European Parliament. Without a fair hearing on both sides, it is unsurprising that the world has a one-sided perception of Cyprus, which results in unfair pressure on Turkish Cypriots.
	Unilateral acceptance of Greek Cypriots into the European Union would be a disaster. It would wreck Europe's relations with Turkey. Her Majesty's Government must take urgent action to prevent that from happening as Britain is legally bound to do under Article 2 of the 1960 Cyprus Treaty of Guarantee. To continue to brush aside our solemn legal obligation under that treaty strikes at the very heart of international law. If it were so easily circumvented, what point would there be in Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots making a new agreement that could be similarly ignored?

Lord Redesdale: My Lords, this evening has seen a wide-ranging debate. It has also been a triumph for the changed timetable. Unbelievably, after 34 speakers and a Statement, it still seems that we will finish at the allotted 7.30 p.m. Many noble Lords have shown an enormous amount of self-discipline in speaking within the time limit.
	I welcome my noble friend Lady Northover to the Front Bench to take over as international development spokesperson. I held the position for eight years, and I think that my noble friend will enjoy it a great deal. However, she will have a far harder time than I had. When I was international development spokesperson, I was fighting against the previous government, who were cutting the international development budget. As a Member of the Opposition, that is an easier position than that which my noble friend has taken on; that is to say, dealing with a budget that is growing to the extent that, by 2006, £1 billion a year will go to Africa. That must be a good thing.
	I do not underestimate the vast problems faced by the developing world. Two of the most difficult to deal with are HIV/AIDS and poverty. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford pointed out, in an extremely well constructed speech, that a further difficulty is the difference between the priorities of the developing world and those of the developed world and the fact that we are spending vast figures on subsidies while vast numbers of people are living below the poverty line.
	The debate has produced a veritable cornucopia of issues to speak to. I was not going to speak about Zimbabwe, but, because of the extremely good speech by the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, I should like to say a few words about the issue. She pointed out the unease that many of us feel about the Government's asylum policy. I realise that the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, is to reply to the debate and this is not a matter for her department, but it must be an issue for joined-up government that people who are obviously going to face persecution and even the threat of death should not be returned to Zimbabwe at the moment.
	The problems in Zimbabwe are growing. The vast number of farm workers who have lost their means of income after the white farmers were thrown off the land is particularly distressing considering the state of famine in the country. Mention was also made of ZANU-PF's particularly worrying view towards the Matabele people and the use of food as a weapon of starvation and as a political weapon.
	It will come as no surprise that I also wish to speak about the Middle East and Iraq, as many noble Lords have done. The noble Lord, Lord Wright of Richmond, made a particularly fine speech about the difficulties faced in Israel and Palestine. I have travelled as frequently as I can to the Middle East. The difficulties with Israel and Palestine are fuelling hatred among the populations of many Arab countries. That is often overlooked and underestimated in the West. The feeling that the Palestinians are suffering under the present regime is one of the reasons that Osama bin Laden has used again and again—if the recent tape is genuine, he has used it in the past few weeks—to fuel hatred of the West and of America.
	We can look back at some of the proposals that could have solved the problems. I firmly believe that the Oslo peace accord could well have solved many of the problems. It is very unfortunate that the Saudi proposal was not carried forward. It could have guaranteed the sovereign status of Israel and allowed the Palestinian state to flourish. The settlements issue has to be resolved in the short term.
	The other issue that I wish to speak about is Iraq. Many noble Lords have spoken about it this evening, so I shall confine my comments to one issue. I do not believe that the mission that Dr Blix is undertaking—I think he is going to Baghdad on Monday—is doomed to failure. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, I very much hope that he will be successful. Many noble Lords believe that there is little chance of that, but there should not be a correlation between weapons inspectors and the necessity of armed conflict and war. I very much hope Dr Blix is successful, because one of the issues is removing weapons of mass destruction. It will be extremely difficult and dangerous to try to control weapons of mass destruction in a war situation in which the only option is to bomb them from above rather than to dismantle carefully not only the weapons of mass destruction but the apparatus for their construction. For all the problems that the weapons inspectors later faced, they were very successful, especially in removing Saddam Hussein's nuclear ability.
	Like many noble Lords, I am utterly opposed to armed conflict. I am particularly concerned about what could trigger armed conflict. In a particularly fine speech, the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, pointed out that without going back to the United Nations it will be difficult to work out from reading the resolution what constitutes a trigger. If weapons inspectors arriving at a distant outpost are refused access by an official individual, will that be a trigger for war? This is a matter of some concern.
	I listened carefully to the speech made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester, especially his reference to the Congo. Not many years ago, I remember taking part in a debate on the Great Lakes in which the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, talked about what was happening in the region and what the then government believed would happen in Zaire. None of us could believe the horrors that were subsequently to face people in the area, although we could imagine that the breakdown would be fairly terrible. We must bear in mind that the breakdown of the Congo could also be mirrored in a breakdown in Iraq, because of destabilisation in the surrounding region.
	I turn to defence. I realise, and understand why, the noble Lord, Lord Bach, is not here this evening. It would, therefore, be unfair of me to echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Howell, as regards the list that he prepared of disasters that seem to be afflicting procurement in the MoD at present. I had intended to ask questions about the wings of Nimrod, melting boots, and other similar issues. However, I have decided not to do so tonight.
	I wish to concentrate on two issues of particular relevance. The first is a subject that has been discussed in many debates on defence—overstretch. I very much hope that some agreement can be reached on the firemen's strike. However, now that it has started and it looks like becoming a protracted affair going into the New Year, can the Minister say whether the necessary number of troops will be available for training should a war break out in the Middle East? The 19,000 or so service personnel taking part in the current crisis operation in this country must affect troop manning levels. I live just next door to Otterburn training centre. I know that a great deal of testing of equipment and training is called for before military action, as was the case before the Gulf War and the Kosovo conflict. Can the Minister say whether the use of service personnel to meet the crisis in the fire service will affect any troop training requirements?
	My second question relates to the Royal Army Medical Corps. There has been talk of a call-up of reserves. I declare an interest here because I have had my ear bent by my brother-in-law, who served in the Gulf War. Even though he is retired, he is still on the reserve list and might well be called up at some point. This situation is particularly problematical for the medical corps because it is 60 per cent undermanned at present. Indeed, in some specialties it is 90 per cent undermanned. Such undermanning will have a knock-on effect for those reservists of the medical corps who also work for the NHS. If they are taken away from the NHS for quite a long period of time, that will have a considerable effect on the health service.
	A Question on Gulf War syndrome was recently tabled in this House. I am advised by my brother-in-law that this is an issue of concern to some members of the Army Medical Corps, who may be asked to serve again in the Gulf. They feel somewhat undermined by the MoD's position on Gulf War syndrome; for example, the denial of its very existence. We could be sending people who do believe that it exists back into the same situation.
	I shall, if I may, end on a slightly petulant note. I was slightly disappointed that the Queen's Speech made no mention of paving legislation for a referendum on the euro. We on these Benches look forward to the introduction of the euro, and some of us will be campaigning hard on that issue. Noble Lords from other parties may campaign against its introduction, but we hope that the referendum will be held as soon as possible. We must start campaigning if we are to win the referendum.

Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, that we all suffer from the threat of terrorism. Following the bombing in Bali, we live in a much more dangerous world. Al'Qaeda will certainly strike again. Its franchise groups operate around the world. I pay tribute to our intelligence services whose role is critical in locating and evaluating terrorist threats. They are often our unsung heroes.
	We give a guarded welcome to Saddam Hussein meeting his first deadline. However, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay, that, in the light of Saddam Hussein's record, we must prepare for a possible war. At this time, we think of our brave servicemen and women and of their families. On these Benches, we also recognise the dedication and professionalism of our Armed Forces. They are respected and admired around the world. I congratulate those members of the Special Forces on their awards for outstanding bravery in Afghanistan.
	The primary duty of any government is defence of the realm both at home and abroad. The threat of force is vital—diplomacy backed by defence. As long as the Prime Minister continues to strive for peace and to support our allies in the United States and elsewhere, we have a duty to support the Government.
	This support, however, is not unconditional. We shall be pressing Ministers on how they plan to meet their commitments and counter increasing threats with fewer aircraft, fewer ships and a smaller Army. This issue has rightly concerned my noble friends Lord Burnham and Lord Selsdon. We shall continue to question Ministers about the welfare of our Armed Forces; about training, retention and overstretch; and particularly—as my noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford asked—about whether we might be sending men and women into battle with inadequate and unreliable equipment after the failures of the Saif Sareea exercise.
	I hope that lessons have been learnt. The noble Baroness, Lady Symons, mentioned new communications systems. Perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, could be a bit more specific about this in her reply. Some 32 communications systems were used during the exercise, with only a few of them able to interface with the high-level Coalition Joint Operational Command System. Much of the equipment, which was off the shelf, was unfit for desert conditions. As my noble friend Lord Marlesford said, the Clansman radio is unreliable and vulnerable to electronic warfare.
	Will the Minister confirm that the Challenger 2 tanks will be properly "desertised"? Will the MoD achieve its target of 80 per cent availability of the fleet?
	My noble friend Lord Howell asked how many reservists are needed. Will the Minister also confirm that the procedures for the call up of reservists have been updated and should work efficiently in the event of mobilisation? Further to a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, will the Minister confirm that there is sufficient vaccine to immunise against the effects of NBC all service personnel and reservists who may have to be deployed to Iraq?
	It is essential that any deployment is fully funded. My noble friend Lord Howell reminded the House that the Treasury said that we cannot afford it. Are force numbers to be squeezed into a Treasury imposed straitjacket?
	The US President and Congress have voted an extra 40 billion dollars for defence. What are we telling the Americans who have relied in their military plans on us sending our troops?
	We are fully committed to the new chapter of the Strategic Defence Review which reiterates the Government's commitment to the expeditionary concept for our Armed Forces. We welcome the Joint Strike Fighter, the Type 45 destroyers and the new carriers although we remain concerned at the possibility of slippage in these programmes. It is absolutely vital that they are delivered on time and that the upgrade of anti-submarine Nimrods is carried out successfully.
	Can the Minister confirm that the four C17s are exceeding all expectations? Can she also say something on the progress of the A400 project and whether a suitable engine has been identified?
	There is an abundance of problems facing the Government and the MoD because of the firemen's strike. Will the Minister assure the House that those regiments likely to go to the Gulf have been released from possible fire fighting duties? On 1st July the Army was 5,500 below its establishment. Added to this are some 10,000 medically unfit personnel who are unlikely to be deployed on operations. This amounts to an overall shortfall of some 15,000 personnel. Territorial Army numbers have dropped by a third.
	While lack of manpower is one thing, lack of training is another. In a 24-month period, 84 exercises were cancelled, often because those involved were committed to other operations. However, recruitment has shown some improvement. The Royal Scots Dragoon Guards are to be congratulated on forming an extra squadron after two years of determined recruiting. However, can the Minister explain why there was no military accommodation for them, and will she assure the House that this appalling situation has been overcome and will never happen again? Turning to Iraq, tens of thousands of people have been killed—

Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am sorry to intervene. The noble Lord has made all sorts of important points which, if I may say so, are matters of detail, as regards the position of the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards and so on. I am sure that my noble friend will do her best to respond to those points but would it not be better if they were put down in some kind of Written Question and we got the answer that way?

Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I do not accept the noble Lord's point. These are important matters on which we have received much correspondence. I believe that it is fair to ask the Minister about them. If she cannot respond to them all at the Dispatch Box, I am happy for her to write to me.
	Turning to Iraq, tens of thousands of people have been killed under this regime. Can the Minister confirm that the Government and the US Administration are assembling dossiers of evidence against Saddam Hussein, his sons and senior henchmen so they can eventually be charged with war crimes? Our response must not be a military one alone. What discussions are the Government having with the EU, the UN and the US on the humanitarian impact of a possible war, and plans for a post-conflict Iraq? We must be prepared to help the innocent people of Iraq.
	We very much welcome the EU accession treaty Bill. Having recently visited Estonia, I know how much it relishes the challenge of EU membership and how much it will bring to the Union. We do not want Europe to fail. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, described my noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford as being anti-European. Nothing could be further from the truth. My noble friend has made it very clear in this House that he respects Europe's vast diversity but believes that its power should be dispersed and held democratically to account. We should not confuse centralisation with being a good European.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Dunn, reassuringly discussed Hong Kong. I look forward to returning there in February. My noble friend Lady Hooper pointed out the importance of Latin America. My noble friends Lord Howe, Lady Hooper and Lord Blaker were rightly disappointed at the lack of progress with the Gibraltar talks.
	I turn to international development. My noble friend Lady Flather was concerned about how much of taxpayers' money reaches those who most need it. By March next year, 14 million will be suffering from famine in southern Africa. If the figures are to be believed, even more will face starvation in Ethiopia. Will the Government now make interim food available to Ethiopia as a matter of urgency, in spite of Clare Short's comments to the contrary?
	The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, was concerned about the situation in Afghanistan. The United Kingdom pledged to cut heroin production from Afghanistan, but there has been an 18-fold increase in opium production since the removal of the Taliban. It is vital that producers—often poor farmers—are given a sustainable alternative to poppy production. Bearing in mind that 90 per cent of the heroin that comes to Britain originates in Afghanistan, what plans do the Government have to try to stop that supply at source?
	The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, was critical of our stance on Zimbabwe. Like my noble friends Lady Park and Lord Blaker, I make no apology for our concern for the dispossessed and starving of that tragic country. Following the shameful lifting of the recent EU-SADC meeting—which the noble Baroness attended—from Copenhagen to Maputo, are the Government prepared to resist the pressure that the Portuguese are now applying to suspend visa restrictions for the EU summit in Lisbon next spring to enable the Zimbabweans to attend?
	My noble friend Lady Cox mentioned Indonesia. As she said, the vast majority of Indonesians are moderate, law-abiding Muslims who do not appreciate Islam being hijacked by radicals. Britain and the international community need to provide assistance to stabilise its economy, especially because tourism comprises up to one-third of its GDP. Will the Government also offer assistance for social welfare and educational programmes, which are currently being hijacked by extremists? We need to re-engage the armed forces. What help are the Government offering to increase their efficiency?
	At the moment there is a battle being waged for the hearts and minds of the people in Indonesia, as well as in other Muslim states. We failed to read the warning signs, with tragic results in Bali. We must now ensure that we give Indonesia and other similar countries as much constructive assistance as possible.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, this has been an informed debate, drawing on the considerable experience and expertise in this House. It is always difficult when summing up to do justice to a debate of such high quality. In the time available, it will not be possible to answer all of the specific questions that have been raised, but I shall write to noble Lords if necessary.
	I believe that we all agree that we are living through a period of profound change. The world is more interconnected than ever before, yet we are living at a time when some of the differences between us also seem to be more stark than ever before. However, the universal principles of the UN Charter, respect for human rights, democracy and the rule of law, have spread around the world. There are exceptions, but the values that underpin our democracy are being adopted more and more.
	My noble friend Lady Symons set out the Government's foreign policy, defence and international development priorities in her comprehensive opening speech. I want to concentrate on the key themes which emerged during the debate and which will dominate the international agenda for the foreseeable future. I shall group my remarks into three themes: the threat to our collective security from terrorism, state failure and weapons of mass destruction; the balance of global prosperity, the impact of mass migration and movement of people across the world and, in particular, the relationship between the developed and developing world; and the importance of maintaining an effective international rules-based system to regulate the conduct of relations between states.
	First, I turn to the issue of security, Iraq and the situation in the Middle East. Many noble Lords touched on that point, including the noble Lords, Lord Howell, Lord Wallace, Lord Owen, Lord Biffen, Lord Wright, Lord Hannay, Lord Redesdale and Lord Parekh, and the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich. Securing Iraq's disarmament is one of the great security challenges for the world. UN Security Council Resolution 1441 sets out the pathway for peace. As my noble friend Lady Ramsay made clear in her extremely informative speech, the history of UN weapons inspections in Iraq is littered with examples of deceit, evasion, intimidation and harassment. I thank noble Lords who have recognised the significant work and achievements of my right honourable friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary and, indeed, of our officials in securing a unanimous resolution of the UN. As the noble Lord, Lord Howell, said, a credible threat of force was key to obtaining a resolution.
	We must work to reduce the underlying tensions which drive the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and create the risk of them being used. That means continued efforts to build confidence between India and Pakistan, on the Korean peninsula and in the Middle East. Our goal in the Middle East is to achieve an Israeli state free from terror, a viable Palestinian state based on 1967 boundaries, and a comprehensive regional settlement.
	With regard to the issue of settlement building, which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wright, the Government's policy is clear. Settlements are illegal under international law and are an obstacle to peace. Israel should freeze all settlement activity, and we have made our views on that clear to the Israeli Government. It will be difficult and there will be setbacks, but these are challenges that we cannot afford to duck.
	The same is true of the campaign against terrorism. We have made real progress in Afghanistan—an issue raised by the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich. But the terrorist threat remains and is likely to be with us for a long time to come. We need a patient, long-term strategy for dealing with it, combining the full range of instruments, intelligence gathering and law enforcement to disrupt terrorist groups and prevent them acquiring weapons of mass destruction. We also need action to address the root causes of terrorism. We must work hard to tackle the problems of political and religious extremism, particularly in the Middle East. Like my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel, I commend the work being undertaken through the Alexandria Process. We must also take action to prevent situations of state failure of the kind that allowed the Taliban to seize power in Afghanistan.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, raised the issue of terrorism in the UK. The Government are determined that this country should not be used in any way as a base for supporting terrorism overseas. The Terrorism Act 2000, which entered into force in February 2001, sent a powerful signal of our rejection of the claim to legitimacy of international terrorist organisations. We recently added four international terrorist organisations to the list of proscribed organisations, which now stands at 25.
	But the global threat should not blind us to the security challenges that still confront us closer to home. The creation of a secure neighbourhood for Europe remains a priority for this Government. The imminent expansion of NATO and the European Union means that the task is already halfway complete. We must work to ensure that the reunification of the continent does not create new dividing lines, alienating countries which stand at the new Europe's borders.
	Britain has led the way in adapting its defence structures to the new international security environment. The Strategic Defence Review and the subsequent new chapter provided the basis for a major programme of modernisation based on the need for more flexible forces and adoption of cutting-edge technology. That will require additional resources but the Government will not take any chances when it comes to protecting Britain's security. We are committed to significant real increases in defence spending to ensure we make a success of the modernisation programme.
	We are also committed to adapting our security alliances to the new security environment. NATO remains the cornerstone. It has been so successful that observers sometimes underestimate its continuing relevance. Without it, for example, we would not have achieved the kind of progress we have seen recently in the Balkans. It is vital that we continue to maintain and expand the zone of peace in Europe by bringing new members into NATO, by strengthening NATO's relations with Russia and other key partners and by adapting NATO's internal structures. That includes reinforcing Europe's contribution to NATO to further development of the European security and defence policy and higher defence spending. There is no question of the undermining of the transatlantic alliance. On the contrary, President Bush and others have made clear that a stronger European defence identity would help to strengthen NATO.
	The noble Lords, Lord Burnham, Lord Howell, Lord Selsdon and Lord Marlesford, all raised questions about defence equipment. The Government have long recognised that delivering equipment needed by our Armed Forces in time and to cost is challenging and needs reform. Indeed, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Howell, would agree that delivery on time and to cost is difficult, given that the procurement project that he listed was started before 1997. That was the reason behind the move to Smart acquisitions, which was introduced as a key element of the Strategic Defence Review. Our recently-published defence industrial policy re-affirms the principles of Smart acquisition, which are beginning to deliver real results.
	I turn to global prosperity and in particular our development agenda. I begin by welcoming the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, to her new role. I look forward to working with her on those issues. The noble Baroness set out clearly the challenges facing many countries in the developing world, including Africa. The Government's over-arching priority is to work for the elimination of world poverty and the achievement of sustainable development. That will not be easy. One of the achievements of this Government, and in particular of my right honourable friend Clare Short, is the recognition internationally that we cannot deal with development issues without tackling wider issues relating to trade, market access, governance, environmental sustainability and aid effectiveness.
	The international conferences in the past year, starting at Doha with the new trade round, Monterrey on financing for development, the G8 meeting at Kananaskis where the Africa Action Plan was agreed and most recently the World Summit on Sustainable Development have all contributed to that global development agenda.
	I thank noble Lords for the positive comments they made about my own role as Minister with responsibility for Africa. On the African continent, development indicators are going backwards. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister has made clear his personal commitment. The New Partnership for Africa's Development is Africa's own blueprint for its future development and prosperity. At its core is a commitment to good economic and political governance and to a system of peer review.
	My noble friend Lord Desai made comparisons between developments in Africa and in Asia. To his list of differences between Africa and Asia—he spoke of leadership and agricultural revolution—I add the importance of trade, a point to which I shall return. There is no doubt that the situation in Zimbabwe has cast a shadow over NePAD. That is an issue I have discussed many times with the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, in this House. I think that the noble Lord is aware that I do not agree with his assessment of our policy.
	I have said many times in this House that we cannot allow mismanagement in one country to derail the whole process. Yes, the situation in Zimbabwe is critical: rampant inflation, high levels of unemployment; use of violence to achieve political ends; a humanitarian crisis brought on by economic mismanagement and now the politicisation of food aid.
	Conservative Front Bench spokespersons, including the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, have pressed me many times on our policies. We cannot see what the Official Opposition would have achieved in following its policy priorities, except endorsement of Mugabe's fast-track policies in terms of land reform, which has left thousands of farm workers homeless and jobless by paying compensation to farmers forced off the land. We have secured what the Official Opposition could not—an international consensus with the Commonwealth, with EU support and support from the United States and other countries.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Park, raised the question of visas in Zimbabwe. The new visa regime will help to ensure effective UK immigration control and make it easier for Zimbabwean visitors to travel to the United States. Large numbers are currently refused entry to the UK and returned; large numbers abscond after being granted temporary admission; and increasingly large numbers have unfounded asylum claims. Only 64 per cent of asylum seekers are refused entry.
	With respect to the fees, we are under standing parliamentary instructions to recover the full costs of our consular and visa operations worldwide. We were running our operation in Harare at a loss to the British taxpayer of £400,000 in the last financial year. That is why we have had to move to using the parallel rate. The method of applying for visas is one that we use in a number of British missions throughout the world.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Flather, spoke about the important role of women in international development. I agree with the noble Baroness. But I think that she has misunderstood our approach. The millennium development goals are goals which the whole international community has signed up to and they are a cornerstone of our development agenda. One of the means that we use to achieve that goal is direct budgetary support with partner governments that are committed to reform. We do that through a memorandum of understanding where responsibilities and obligations on both sides are set out clearly. There is regular monitoring of that. We shall continue to support NGOs in the United Kingdom and in developing countries. I can assure the noble Baroness that women's equality remains a key part of our strategy. I shall write to the noble Baroness with more details on that.
	The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester raised the situation of the Democratic Republic of Congo. We welcome the UN panel report on the exploitation of mineral resources. We are consulting widely on our response to the report's recommendations. The right reverend Prelate is quite right; bringing peace to the DRC would bring substantial benefits, not only to the country but also to the region and to the continent.
	We have had a number of breakthroughs, including the Pretoria agreement and the ongoing work on the inter-Congolese dialogue. However, we remain concerned about the humanitarian and security situation in north-eastern DRC and we have reminded the Government of Uganda of its obligations to the local population.
	The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford talked about debt relief. HIPC has been an important success. Twenty-six countries will get over 60 billion dollars in debt relief. But we are aware of the continuing problems facing some HIPC countries and we remain concerned about the long-term sustainability of HIPC countries. No amount of debt relief can guarantee future sustainability. That requires prudent new borrowing, access to adequate concessional financing and strong growth strategy.
	On trade I agree with much of what the right reverend Prelate said. My noble friend Lady Symons is holding regular meetings with Commonwealth high commissioners to discuss developing country concerns about trade.
	We are deeply concerned about the growing food crisis in southern Africa and in the Horn of Africa. I remind noble Lords that we are the second largest humanitarian donors to Zimbabwe. We have increased the percentage of the budget that goes on aid. It was 0.26 per cent in 1997. It now stands at 0.32 per cent and will be 0.4 per cent of GDP by 2006.

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the Minister for letting me intervene. Are the Government as worried as the US Government seem to be about the political manipulation of food aid going to Zimbabwe? I heard a suggestion from Washington that the US Government would send in their own teams to try to get food aid out of the hands of ZANU-PF. Does she share that worry?

Baroness Amos: Yes, my Lords, we are concerned about the politicisation of food aid; that is one issue that the EU discussed with SADC. However, that does not affect food aid from the United Kingdom because that goes through the World Food Programme and non-governmental organisations; politicisation happens to the grain bought by the Zimbabwe Government's grain marketing board; but we are concerned.
	Long-term challenges face us that can be tackled only through international co-operation through the United Nations, the Commonwealth, the European Union and a whole range of other regional and multilateral organisations. The strength of the multilateral system is vital to British interests. My noble friend mentioned the importance of international law and the UN. We need an effective international rules-based system to regulate the conduct of relations between states. The European Union merits particular mention here. On a growing range of issues, from migration to economic reform and energy security, Britain can achieve its objective only through co-operation with our European partners. The noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, talked in detail about Europe.
	A number of specific issues were raised. The noble Baroness, Lady Dunn, spoke about Hong Kong. We admire the resilience of the people of Hong Kong and agree that none of its essential features has been undermined by its constitutional change.
	The noble Lords, Lord Blaker and Lord Astor of Hever, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, all raised the issue of Gibraltar. We shall stick by our 1969 pledge that there will be no change in sovereignty without the consent of the people of Gibraltar.
	The noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, raised the question of Cyprus. We hope that a reunited Cyprus will join the European Union, and fully support the efforts of the UN Secretary-General in that respect. The noble Lord, Lord Williamson, talked about Russia and Kaliningrad. The UK is not a Schengen state and our role in the issue of Kaliningrad is therefore limited.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, mentioned Latin America. Those relationships are of increasing importance, as evidenced by the Prime Minister's visit last year to Brazil, Mexico and Argentina. As the noble Baroness mentioned, there have been several return visits.
	In conclusion, let me say something about Britain's role. I agreed with my noble friend Lord Parekh when he talked about our European, Atlantic and global reach. We are a leading member of the European Union and the Commonwealth. We enjoy a cultural influence wholly disproportionate to our size, thanks to the English language and the influence of the BBC World Service. We are a permanent member of the world's supreme decision-making body, the United Nations Security Council. We have the world's fourth largest economy, an active development aid programme, highly effective Armed Forces and more overseas investment than any country other than the United States. As my noble friend Lady Symons said in her opening remarks, we will use that influence and that independence to ensure that Britain is a force for good in the world.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Ashton of Upholland, I beg to move that the debate be now adjourned until Monday next.
	Moved, That the debate be now adjourned until Monday next.—(Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton.)
	On Question, Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned accordingly until Monday next.

House adjourned at ten minutes past seven o'clock.